County Board - Regular Meeting

Good morning, good morning. We're gonna have our members take their seats, please. Sorry, we have a lot of activity going on. We don't like to usually delay, but we're wrapping up.

And I understand, obviously, as always, there's a little travel issue. So we're trying to give people time to get here. Welcome to the Will County Board meeting for August 2026. I'll call this meeting to order. Member Winfrey will lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance and introduce the clergy.

Good morning everyone. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. This morning we have as our clergy the Reverend Dr. Curtis Bryan, who is the pastor of Mount Zion Baptist Church in Joliet. That's District 6 for those of you who don't know. Pastor Brian is passionate about preaching, teaching, and spreading the gospel of Christ. He answered his call to ministry at the age of 13 and preached his first sermon at 14. After receiving his ministerial license in 2008 from the Reverend Dr. Lance Johnson, He began his pastoral career by serving St. Paul's Baptist Church of Richmond, Virginia, which is where he is from. As the associate pastor of students, in 2014, he became a member of the Joliet community. Dr. Bryan, as I said, is a native of Richmond. He's a graduate of Virginia Commonwealth University with a degree in business administration and management. He furthered his education at the Samuel DeWitt Proctor School of Theology at Virginia Union University and received his master's degree in divinity. In May of 2021, Dr Bryant earned his doctoral degree in homilies at Garrett Evangelical Theological Seminary in Evanston after successful defense of his thesis title. Everyone eats preaching to inspire multi generational engagement and worship beyond virtual and traditional context. Dr. Bryan believes that whenever a sermon is served in the house of God, everyone should leave the preaching moment feeling fed and full. His desire is that you not only hear the message of Christ, but see and experience the gospel of Christ. Dr. Bryan is a writer, mentor, published author, preacher, but most importantly, a servant of God, and will bring our sermon this morning.

All right.

Blessings to each and every one of you. Thank you for this opportunity to stand. Let us all go to God together in prayer. As we pray for Will County, gracious and heavenly Father, we thank you for this privilege of gathering together in a service to the people of Will County. God, we ask your wisdom and your guidance, your grace upon every leader entrusted with the responsibility of serving these communities. God, we pray that you grant all of them and all of us discernment that rises above personal preference, political interests, and individual ambition. God that you will grant us the capacity to lead with integrity, listen with compassion, deliberate with respect, and always remember that public leadership is ultimately an act of public service. God grant this board the spirit of faithful stewardship over the resources and opportunities and responsibilities entrusted to their care. God, I pray that you give them the heart and wisdom to make decisions that strengthen our communities today while preparing Will County for generations to come. God, we especially pray for a proper representation and equity for all residents. May every community have a voice, every person be treated with dignity, every neighborhood receive fair consideration, and God, give our leaders the courage to recognize disparities, address inequities, and work so that opportunity and resources, safety, and service are available to everyone who call Well County home. And finally, oh God, bless the proceedings of this meeting today. Where there's disagreement, we pray that you grant respect. Where there is our competing interests, God grant fairness. May Will County continue to be a place where families flourish, businesses prosper, communities grow, and every resident know that they matter. Guide those who lead, bless all those who serve, and God, may the work be accomplished here to reflect the wisdom, justice, and compassion, and common good. It's in your holy name we pray. and thank you in advance for what you are about to do. Let all God's people say amen.

Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll?

Richmond Williams, Dean Schlappman, Ocala, Pretzel, Butler, Newquist, Belich, Axley, Brooks, Winfrey, Bullock, Logan, Freeman, Revis, Mitchell, Ortiz, Berkowitz, Hickey, Costa, Trainier, Van Dyne.

Point one, members present, we have a quorum.

I need a motion to place on file the certificate of publication. Motion by Revit, seconded by Freeman. Any discussion?

Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Richmond, Williams, Dean Schlattman, Pretzel, Butler, Newquist, Balich, Oxley, Brooks, Winfrey, Bullock, Logan, Freeman, Revis, Mitchell, Ortiz, Berkowitz, Hickey, Costa, Trainier, Van Dyne.

21 in the affirmative. The motion carries. I need a motion to approve the minutes from the July 16th, 2026 board meetings.

Motion by Dean Schlattman, seconded by Mitchell.

Any discussion? Previous roll call by Brooks, seconded by Winfrey. All in favor?

Any opposed? Motion carries. Can I get a motion to approve the minutes from the July 16th, 2026 executive session? Motion by Revis, seconded by Mitchell. Any discussion?

previous by actually second by hickey all in favor any opposed motion carries madam clerk will you please acknowledge the elected officials and media present today today we have county executive jennifer bertino tarrant county clerk annette parker circuit clerk andrea lynn chasteen coroner laurie summers auditor duffy blackburn and treasurer tim brophy and media we have bob ocon with the herald news and Michelle Mullins with the Daily South town.

Thank you very much.

We have no honorary resolutions or proclamations today, so we'll move on to public comment for agenda items only for agenda items only at this time. I invite anyone to come up for public comments for today's agenda items.

A reminder that you will please state your name and you have three minutes to present. This is for all public comments land user. Just reminder for land use any. Cases as well anything what? We don't. This is for any item on the agenda today.

You're up, sir. All right. Good morning and thank you for allowing me the opportunity to be here today. You'll be hearing from several police chiefs today and we stand together. My name is Dan Jungles. I am a Shanahan resident and I currently serve as the undersheriff at the Will County Sheriff's Office. I've had the privilege of serving Will County at the Sheriff's Office for the last 27 years. Throughout my career, one responsibility has remained constant, protecting the people that we serve while maintaining their trust. Today, I want to talk to you about License Plate Readers, or LPRs. Before we talk about that technology, I want to talk about something that we believe is even more important, the facts responsible use of technology in public trust. I want to start by saying something very simple. Please don't believe everything you read on social media. Getting rid of LPRs is the only topic that radicals in both the far right and the far left agree on, and that should be alarming to anyone with common sense. There are legitimate questions about LPR technology, and we welcome those questions. But people should ask about privacy. They should ask who has access to that information, how long that data is retained, how searches are conducted, and whether that information can be shared and what oversights exist. Those are reasonable questions, and as law enforcement, we should be willing to answer those. But there is a difference between asking questions and spreading information that simply isn't accurate. LPRs are just another tool that law enforcement can use to help solve crimes and protect our citizens. In fact, it is the most important tool that law enforcement has utilized in decades to help solve crimes. They can alert officers when a vehicle is stolen, is associated with a wanted person or missing person, AMBER alerts, or other law enforcement investigations. And this technology is not new. It has been used by law enforcement for decades. What has changed is the technology's accuracy and the ability to provide investigators with information more quickly. But technology is only as good as the policies governing its use. That is why we, as law enforcement professionals, believe any LPR program must include clear rules regarding search justifications, access, data retention, transparency, and so on. The public should know what the technology can do and what it can't do and how we are making sure it is used responsibly. Our objective is not to create a surveillance system. Our objective is to give our deputies and officers another tool to help solve crimes, recover stolen vehicles, locate missing persons and endangered people, and make Will County a safer place to live. We encourage the board and residents to ask questions. Challenge us. Hold us accountable. If law enforcement misuses this technology, that person needs to be held accountable and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But we also have to ask those conversations based on facts, not Facebook posts, not social media rumors, not assumptions made about what the technology does. Instead of relying on information from social media, politicians with agendas and influencers, ask those law enforcement professionals who are subject matter experts on the technology, whose job it is to serve and protect our communities. Thank you.

All right, folks, just so you know, it's really hard. I feel really bad doing that, but we do keep it to three minutes. We're going to have Beth over here. Just give us a 30-second warning so you know. Again, we want to make sure that everyone has an opportunity to speak.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Brian Benton. For the past five years, I've served as the Chief of Police in Mokena, Illinois. Prior to that, I served as the Chief of Police in Joliet, where I worked for over 28 years. In my 33 and a half years in law enforcement, I believe that the three most significant advancements in criminal investigation that are used to solve crimes and arrest offenders have been fingerprint analysis, DNA processing, and automated license plate reader technology. There are some misconceptions out there, so I'd like to share with you what license plate readers do and don't do. License plate readers only capture the image of a vehicle at a certain point in time. They capture identifying features such as a license plate, a broken window, a bumper sticker, or maybe a dent, basically the fingerprint of the vehicle. They do not capture the driver's image. They do not have facial recognition. They do not provide the vehicle owner or driver's information. They do not record speed or enforce speed limits. They do not track vehicles. They simply take a picture of a vehicle in time. Now, I understand the reservations some people may have regarding LPR cameras. I've heard that it's an invasion of privacy or that it's a warrantless search. After hearing extensive arguments from both sides in March of last year, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois returned to finding that the use of LPR technology is not a search under the Fourth Amendment. The court upheld the use of the technology because they realize it for what it is. It's just a picture of a car on a public way. Real quickly, I'd like to share a few examples where LPR has proven critical to our success in Mokena. We had a burglary to a landscaping business where a crew broke in and stole a truck, a trailer, and tens of thousands of dollars worth of equipment. Through LPR technology, we traced that vehicle back to Sleepy Hollow, Illinois, where we served a search warrant, arrested multiple known gang members, seized drugs, guns, and all the stolen equipment. This crew had committed similar burglaries in other jurisdictions where they were charged as well, all because of the benefits and the use of LPR technology. Another case we had a subject arrested subject for an armed robbery after a Facebook marketplace jewelry sale went bad. We traced that subject through the vehicle back to a pawn shop and then to his residence Payless, where he was subsequently arrested. LPRs can also help prevent crime. In yet another case, a stolen car was registered on our hot list, and when that car entered Mokena, our officers are notified and immediately went to the vicinity where the LPR alerted. Our officers arrived in the area and observed multiple subjects in the process of breaking into an auto body shop while attempting to steal other cars. They jumped back into their car and fled back onto the highway, unsuccessful in their attempt, all because of the LPR technology. LPRs have proven successful time and time again in not only solving crime, but saving lives. Whether it's been located in Alzheimer's or dementia patient, a lost or missing special needs child, or other people in jeopardy, the cameras have proven themselves over and over. Now, these LPRs are a critical tool for us, but at the same time, we realize there have been abuses in the past. officers have used the system in direct contrast to the purpose and we're hearing repeatedly of officers getting fired and in some cases charged currently for doing so and we agree with that we appreciate the feedback we received from the public works committee over the past few months we've changed our policies strengthened them and also set implemented protocols in our flock system to prevent any of such abuses. And you're going to hear from my peers here on how FLOC itself has implemented stricter auditing tools and automatically notifying supervisors when there's any suspicious activity on the LPRs. Again, I appreciate your time here today and welcome any comments. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Dan Murdock. I am the Regional Sales Representative for FLOC Safety. I've been with flock answer.

I'm going to tell you here. We have to quorum as much as possible here. I get we have a lot of emotions. We do not do this. In this facility, thank you.

I live in the region. I've been with Flock for about six years now. Flock first came into Will County in 2020. If we can go back to that moment, that was when crime was on the rise in Illinois and nationally. Flock now works with every law enforcement agency in Will County, except for the Lockport PD, to help deploy automatic license plate readers. Since our deployment started at scale, starting 2021, in Illinois, retail theft has been down every year since then. Nationally, since 2021, homicides are down 41%. Auto theft is down 50%. The law enforcement professionals will tell you that the number one thing that has changed in policing over the last five to eight years is the deployment of license plate readers that has helped address these issues. Now, what does the camera do? What does the camera not do? The camera takes a picture of the rear of the vehicle and allows law enforcement to look for vehicles based on make, color, type of vehicle, and descriptive features like roof racks, bumper stickers, or back racks. What they do not do is they do not do facial recognition block has made very public and statements that we will never do facial recognition. They do not categorize anyone by name. You are not able to go into the flock system and look for. Jessica Arnold, that is not how the system works. you uh we do not track uh active active life you are not able to look for democrats or republicans or people who have gone to a dispensary or any one of those actions law enforcement is able to search for those specific items when they are running a search law enforcement has to put in the reason for the search the case number for the search, and a code that aligns with the type of case they're working, so arson, homicide. And then that is all auditable. If there are discrepancies or things that do not look correct to the internal system of law, that flags law enforcement to tell them that there is something that they need to look at. This is the strongest auditing tool of any police software there is on the market. That is why today officers are getting in trouble across the country for misusing the system. And when they do misuse the system, when a law enforcement looks into it, they are messing around in several other systems like the DMV, all sorts of other databases that law enforcement has access to. But FLOC is the one that is flagging it and letting law enforcement know that this officer is an issue.

Good to go. All right. Good morning. My name is Jason Arias and I'm the chief for the Naperville Police Department. Appreciate the opportunity to speak today specifically about accountability as it relates to LPR technology. I understand why people have concerns. When law enforcement is given access like this, the public should expect safeguards. That's an important point. Trust shouldn't require the public to simply take our word for it. Technology needs guardrails. auditing, and consequences for misuse. Responsible LPR programs should have all three. And LPR technology isn't unique in that regard. Officers are entrusted every day with tremendous authority and access to sensitive information. We have access to criminal histories, sensitive databases, confidential police reports, body-worn cameras, and other information that if misused could negatively impact someone's privacy or their life. The answer has never been to take those tools away because they could potentially be abused. The answer is to establish strong policies for their use and hold people accountable if they violate that policy. LPR technology should be treated the same way. When one of our officers conducts an LPR search, they simply can't type in a license plate and start looking. They're required to provide a case number, identify the type of crime or police-related incident they're investigating, and document the reason for the search. Those searches are all logged. we can determine what they searched and the justification they provided. That means supervisors can audit the system and determine whether an officer had a legitimate law enforcement purpose for accessing that information. And if they didn't, there are consequences. An officer who intentionally abuses this system isn't facing a slap on the wrist. Misusing law enforcement databases at all can and should cost someone their job and expose them to criminal charges. There's a saying in our profession, no one hates a bad cop more than a good cop. I truly believe that. The overwhelming majority of police officers use the authority entrusted to them responsibly. And if someone doesn't, our responsibility as police leaders is to identify it, investigate it, and hold them accountable. But accountability doesn't stop with the safeguards we have today. As we gain experience with this technology, we're also getting better at auditing its use and strengthening our oversight. We recognize the responsibility that comes with this technology. We have accountability in place today, and we're committed to making it stronger tomorrow. Thank you. Because LPRs are an incredibly valuable tool for law enforcement, but capability should never exist without accountability. That means asking what deters misuse, can we identify it if it occurs, and are there meaningful consequences if it does? For the chiefs in this room, those aren't just questions we should be asking. They're standards we're meeting today and are committed to continually strengthening as this technology evolves. We have safeguards in place. We audit the systems. We hold people accountable. And as we learn more, we will improve that. Thanks for the time. We understand the trust that comes with this.

Hello, my name is Carissa Fleming. I have been living in Will County my whole life. And one thing I wanted to talk about was growing up, I was told constantly how lucky I was to be in America because I wasn't under constant surveillance like North Korea and Russia. And I'm sure many of you also heard a similar sentiment as you're growing up. The more the technology develops, the more I question the technology we are using in America. The folks before me had said that These license plate readers cannot be used to track or trace. And at the same time, every time you follow an image from camera to camera to camera, is that not also tracing and tracking the vehicle? The fact that you hold on to bumper stickers as fingerprints of the vehicle, I don't know. We don't know what laws and what kind of misuse this could lead in the future. Maybe the people right now are using it for the good, but we do not know going forward what kind of thought police might be using this information to just, yeah. So I do want you guys to consider how this could be misused in the future, even though it is actively being misused right now. I wish I could trust the police and I hope that they continue to showcase ways that they're holding others accountable. Um, but until then I will hold solid in my distrust in my worry. And I do want you guys to know that Joliet has consistently disappointed me and listening to their constituents. And I really, really hope that will county give you better.

Thank you so much.

Hi, my name is Isabel Gloria, lifelong resident of Joliet, and I work in Naperville. And like my friend Carissa mentioned, I'm against the flock cameras or any sort of license plate readers. And this is because I see it as, regardless of whether legally it's seen as an infringement of my rights, I do see that as an American, as an infringement of my rights. Even if the laws don't say that that's my right, I think a lot of Americans would agree that that is our right. And all of us pledged an oath to the flag this morning for liberty and justice for all. Liberty and justice for all. And that's the mass surveillance is something that I see as an infringement on that liberty. And The flock camera representative mentioned that there's been all these decreases in crime, and he attributed that to flock cameras. I think that's a very gross way to represent data. We have to think about the difference between cause and correlation. So I think that that's a topic that is a lot more complex than simply saying the license plate readers have reduced this by 50%. Don't be swayed by someone who's getting paid money to try to convince you to expand what's already being paid for. That's going to help their paycheck. So I'm just letting you know that, like, from a resident standpoint, I'm not convinced and you might think that I'm a radical. I think someone here mentioned that we're radicals for being up here. But I speak to my neighbors, I speak to my friends, I speak to my coworkers, and nobody of the mainstream people is in favor of this mass surveillance. We're not. And so are you here to listen to the people or are you here to listen to the people that are here to make money? That's what I bring today. And remember that we're here for liberty and justice for all.

Thank you for your time. My name is Craig Herr. I was senior pastor of First Presbyterian Church, Joliet, for 32 years, a member of the Willow County Center and Economic Development Board for 30 years, and I've been concerned and worked very hard to improve the quality of life in the city and in the county. Like dandelions, Flock cameras are popping up all over the place. Can you believe it? Concerns over privacy, surveillance, oversight continue to grow with the use of flock cameras across the country. Information gained from this surveillance is shared with thousands of agencies nationwide because we have dandelions everywhere. We don't want to live in a surveillance state. We don't want government overreach into our private daily life. 70%, no, now 72% of the American people do not want the exponential expansion of AI data centers, which process the information acquired by the flock cameras and make it available to so many, many. Americans are angry about the AI data centers and they are getting extremely angry about the proliferation of flock LPR cameras. Hundred cities have rejected the automated license plate readers. This is a bipartisan issue in alphabetical order. Democrats, independents, Republicans are united in opposing the installation of flock cameras like dandelions all over the place by growing margins. There are no uniform national rules restricting how information collected by these cameras can be accessed, used, and police departments across the country have different rules and regulations and retention periods. 50. Remember, 50 police officers nationwide have been prosecuted for the misuse of flock cameras already in this country for stalking people, exes, girlfriends, etc. You don't need a warrant to track someone using a flock camera. Joliet police officer faces termination over misuse, possible misuse, 153 searches of a female police officer. I don't know if he's guilty or not, but the point is, that he could just do this on his own. He didn't have to get approval from the chief of police, didn't have to get approval from his supervisor. ICE can access these from police departments anywhere in the country that are friendly to ICE. This violates our First Amendment rights. Lauren Ryan, because of a flock mistake, had police draw their guns on her and her husband at their home. Lindsay Isaacs was jailed for 13 days and was threatened to be put on trial for murder because her car was misread by a flock camera and misinterpreted, and she had nothing to do with that. So I ask you to pause. Thank you. I ask you to pause, to stop using these flock cameras. There's more opposition than you realize. If you think people want this, you are mistaken. Did you ask the people of Will County if they wanted flock cameras? You did not. They do not want them. Thank you.

Good. good morning members of the will county board my name is raymond helper i'm a resident of cedar glen i don't have an opinion on flock but i am here to respectfully ask you to vote no on badger's proposed rezoning i want to focus particularly on one issue that i believe deserves more attention our groundwater and private wells that our neighborhood depends upon cedar glen and the surrounding residential neighborhoods rely on our private wells for water We don't have the luxury of simply turning on a municipal water connection if our groundwater supply is diminished or our wells are affected. Residents have been told that Badger's operation could involve approximately 30 to 40 hydro excavation trucks, with each truck capable of carrying roughly 1,600 gallons of water. That represents the potential movement of approximately 48,000 to 64,000 gallons of water a day if those trucks are being filled daily. This is already estimated to be more water than the two adjacent subdivisions combined as we discussed at the Land Use Committee. We also heard that Badger has discussed eventually extending its operation to potentially twice the initial size we're talking about today. If that happens, we could be talking about 60 to 80 trucks, which equates to 96,000 to 128,000 gallons of water a day. Those numbers should concern every homeowner who depends on a private well in the area. I'm not asking the board to simply take my word for it. I'm asking you to require the science before you approve the zoning before putting a large water consuming operation next to homes that depend on groundwater. Shouldn't we have a comprehensive, independent hydro geologic studies showing that our wells will not be adversely impacted. Who will be responsible if the neighboring wells experience reduced capacity? Who pays the homeowners if we have to deepen the wells? Who pays if residents eventually have to connect to Illinois American Water, which we know is extremely expensive? These questions should be answered before the zoning is approved, not after homeowners begin to experience problems and financial burden. There is another issue I ask you to consider here. This zoning decision could last far longer than Badger's presence at the property. I've been in Cedar Glen for over 30 years. If Badger operates here for several years and ultimately decides to move its business elsewhere, the zoning doesn't leave with them. The zoning remains. A future owner could potentially look at the property and say this is already zoned for this type of commercial use. What else can I put here? The residents of Cedar Glen could be left with a property permanently entitled for uses that may even be less compatible with our homes and what we are discussing today. You're not just deciding whether Badger should operate here. You're deciding what kinds of businesses the county is willing to allow next to our homes for years and potentially decades to come. Once this property is rezoned and the facility is established, we cannot simply undo the decision if our wells decline, traffic becomes more dangerous due to all the trucks or the character of our neighborhood changes permanently. Please don't force the residents of Cedar Glen to take this risk. Please vote no to the Badger rezoning and require them to find a location appropriate for their operation.

Good morning. Everybody looks so nice. I feel very underdressed. My name is Kelly Smith. I'm a licensed marriage and family therapist. I live in Joliet for two years now. My husband's a lifelong Will County resident. I'm extremely concerned about the stories that we're seeing in the news about how license plate readers are being utilized for domestic violence unfortunately we know that domestic violence is a massive issue in law enforcement families there are many many good officers in our law enforcement communities but we know that incidence of domestic violence is anywhere from 100 to 400 percent higher in law enforcement families and those are exactly the people who have access to this technology we have already heard about dozens of officers around the country miss using this technology to stalk intimidate harass and instill fear in their ex-partners in the mothers of their children and in others in those women's lives And so I have no doubt that there are some benefits to public safety. But my ask is, at what cost? And who's paying the cost? For generations, we've had measures like this sold to us as in the interest of public safety. but it comes in the form of control, it comes in the form of surveillance, and it mirrors a dynamic that happens in abusive relationships. In abusive relationships, there's control, there's surveillance, and it's sold as something that is done out of care, something that is done out of a desire for safety. And I'm deeply concerned about the women of our community, about their loved ones, about their children, and about what kind of harm might befall them because officers will now be able to see granular, granular information about where they're going and when. And I'm very afraid of what people with bad intentions might be able to do with that information. We know that law enforcement agencies and Flock have been dishonest about how they're using this technology. A woman in Texas was tracked in seeking an abortion to our great state of Illinois. That law enforcement agency and Flock themselves called it fake news. They said that it was a lie. They said it was a misunderstanding. And court documents later revealed the truth, that it was about the abortion. It was not about a wellness check. So can we trust these organizations? Can we trust them to implement this technology safely? I don't believe so. I don't believe so. Thank you.

My name is Sam Coffey. I'm a resident of Will County, specifically Joliet. I'd love to get up here and just kind of refute everything that the cops and that the flock regional manager said from the idea that they don't collect any personal information and it's just license plates. Those can so easily be tied back to any individual person. So while that may be true that they don't collect the info, they they really are. I'd love to refute all these things, but I don't think I have time to do all of them. And frankly, I'm wondering why the police are even here and not doing their jobs. protecting the community, but I'll just get into it. Earlier this year, Joliet Police Department fired Lieutenant Jeremy Harrison in connection to his misuse of flock surveillance cameras to track a female coworker. He accessed the camera eight times to stalk her, conducting 153 searches. He lied about his reasoning for the searches, just as police lie every day trying to get away with the misconduct. He was not arrested for this. His victim was another police officer who either had access to the system herself or at minimum had connections to people who could access and warn her about what was happening. My point is that it would have been very easy to catch him when his victim was a cop. How can we be confident that other officers aren't misusing these to stalk any of us when they so boldly stalk their coworkers? There is no regulation that can keep us safe when the police are willing to take these sorts of actions that are already prohibited. This is just another example of the Big Brother surveillance culture that citizens have allowed and governments have perpetrated. In July, the Joliet PD incompetently released a FOIA request that had improperly redacted information, exposing every license plate that had been searched by each individual officer. Additionally, it showed the Joliet system had been accessed by departments across the country, sometimes with vague reasoning like other-federal by departments in Atlanta or Moody, Alabama, raising questions about JPD's compliance with the Illinois Trust Act. These are just the local cases that I personally know about and that pertain to my city. I'm sure that other cities and municipalities have similar controversies. Nationally, these surveillance cameras have been used to track women, like the person before me just talked about, from Texas to Illinois. They have been used to track people purchasing marijuana in states like Michigan, which could affect our marijuana industry here and potentially other industries or other states that had to criminalize other industries, I guess. And it's really unacceptable. Frankly, I'm disappointed that we're even here considering these contracts. Please oppose and vote no to these contracts with Flock and continue opposing any contracts for surveillance regardless of the status of regulation. Thank you.

Good morning, County Board. My name is Noah. I live in Crest Hill. I'm a supportive housing case manager in Juliette. I oppose the county's enabling an expansion of automated license plates readers, including those operated by Flock Safety. They enable the mass collection and retention of location data on millions of people who are not suspected of any crime. And once that data is collected, it can be used by anybody. Once the data is out there, even though certain people are allowed to use it, that data is collected and it is vulnerable to being misused by any entity. Public safety should never come at the expense of universal surveillance, and it's a fundamental right of people to move freely without being subject to continuous government or corporate tracking. Illinois needs stronger regulations to prohibit unnecessary sharing of surveillance data across jurisdictions and ensure that information collected for one lawful purpose is not repurposed for unrelated investigations or broad intelligence gathering. I'm particularly concerned about the reports of immigration enforcement bypassing the Illinois Trust Act to collect information on Illinois residents for the purpose of deportations. Cases like Joliet, Police Lieutenant Jeremy Harrison misusing this data for personal reasons are being repeated over and over across the US at an alarming rate. Though ALPRs have been used to hold criminals accountable, the current iterations of this technology are incredibly inaccurate. One municipality, Roseville, California, found a 71% failure rate, some find as low as 31%. And these create risks for police officers and the public by creating unnecessary and potentially hostile interactions between police officers and innocent civilians. Information collected through automated surveillance should be strictly limited, retained only for the shortest period necessary, and never maintained as a long-term record of daily movements for law-abiding people. Recent changes to the policies of flag safety are insufficient, as they come to us as promises made by a private entity instead of as democratically deliberated protections with the force of law. Decisions regarding surveillance technologies must be made openly with meaningful public input, independent oversight, regular audits, clear evidence that any deployment is necessary, effective, and proportionate. This is all common sense stuff. These are basic regulations that we lack at the moment. At this stage, there's a lack of comprehensive federal or state safeguards. The burden should rest with the government to demonstrate a compelling public need, measurable effectiveness, or robust protections for civil liberties. And at the current stage, I just don't see that. When these standards cannot be met under current regulations, deployment should not proceed, including in Will County. Thank you very much for your consideration.

A lot of great orators before me, that's not going to be me. So just a heads up. My name is Gretchen Shelby dormer. I'm a resident of Juliet. I'm speaking today solely on my own behalf and not on behalf of my employer or any organization with which I'm affiliated professionally. I work in cloud infrastructure, automation and governance. My job involves designing and governing large software systems. And that background is why I felt compelled to speak today. When engineers evaluate a software platform, we don't just ask what it does today. We ask what it will be capable of in five or ten years, who will control those capabilities, how access will be governed, and what safeguards exist before those capabilities are ever needed. My concern with Flock is not simply the cameras themselves. It is that this is long-lived digital infrastructure. Software platforms evolve. New features are added, integrations expand, and capabilities grow over time. This isn't a criticism of a particular company. That's just how software works because of that. I believe that this decision deserves a level of public scrutiny beyond what is typical for procurement contract. I also question whether a decision of this magnitude should be made solely through routine purchasing processes. A network surveillance platform has implications for the privacy of every resident who travels through our community. It has potential to affect not only today's policies, but those adopted years from now as the technology evolves. whether this particular proposal is ultimately approved or not i would encourage the board to consider whether stronger public oversight is appropriate before deploying infrastructure of this kind at a minimum i believe residents deserve transparency regarding what data is collected how long it is retained who may access it how it may be shared with and what independent auditing exists and how any future expansion of capabilities would be approved I also want to talk for a moment about something called just-in-time access. Search justifications are well and good. I assume it works something like systems I've set up in the past where I don't give people default access to things that need admin permissions. You get basic read access, perhaps, maybe not in the case of this, but if you need something that, if you need permissions that you're able to do something greater with, You only get them for a small amount of time. You have to enter in like a ticket or an investigation or a case number, and you are granted access to the system for an amount of time. Something that's interesting to consider with this kind of system is that if I spend 95% of the time that I've accessed with those permissions doing the thing that I said that I'm supposed to do, I could still spend 5% of that time doing something I'm not supposed to do. And if every action creates an audit log, That is hundreds, if not thousands of audit logs that somebody would need to comb through to find out what you were doing naughty 2% of the time. Thank you.

My name is Leanne Chalepas. I'm a Will County resident and an honor to be Frankfort's chief of police. I would like to read a few examples from 10 Will County law enforcement agencies demonstrating how flock technology has directly contributed to successful investigative outcomes. These are some of the success stories attributed to flock and illustrate why chiefs across Will County believe it is important to preserve this investigative tool while maintaining appropriate policies, safeguards, accountability, and transparency. I'm gonna start with Will County Sheriff's Department. The Will County Sheriff's Department provided data that was too numerous for me to list individually, so I was able to categorize their cases from 2023 to 2026. They had 45 crimes against person cases where flock was utilized to identify offending vehicles, support investigations, and to help with a successful case. 10 of those were homicides. Multiple armed robberies, assaults, batteries, burglaries, violations of orders of protection, stalking, etc. Six missing person cases, one of those being someone listed as missing in danger. 13 sex crime cases, one of those being someone traveling to meet a minor for indecent solicitation, one predatory criminal sexual assault while manufacturing child sexual abuse materials. Three arson cases, one abduction case of a child. Crete was able to provide information on a stolen motor vehicle, child endangerment, where they were able to locate the offender. An aggravated DUI hit and run accident where using flock data, they were able to locate the offender within 15 minutes. A noteworthy case from Crete is also in 2023. Harvard Heights Police Department had a case where they had an individual that kidnapped and ultimately killed a 61-year-old woman. The offender was found in Crete utilizing flock. Orland Park Police Department provided multiple incidents including an armored truck robbery burglary motor vehicle and aggravated carjacking etc monique police department provided examples of a session of stolen motor vehicle new onyx police department just from 2025 multiple examples assisting in a home invasion case two missing endangered person cases aggravated battery to a senior citizen armed robbery unlawful restraint mokina already gave their examples in frankfurt in 2021 we had a road rage shooting In 2022, we had a burglary where it was utilized, an armed robbery where a young girl walking out of a restaurant was held at gunpoint and asked for her purse. Using Flock, we were able to find three offenders, a missing and endangered individual in another case, and a felony aggravated battery to an older adult just in 2025 where someone was attacked in a parking lot.

There are so many.

Manhattan had an example of unlawful use of weapon, reckless discharge. And Juliet provided information. This came comprehensively from our Will Grundy Major Crimes Task Force. But just know in that information, we had eight homicides, one mass murder incident, home invasions, aggravated batteries with a firearm, et cetera, et cetera. The list is long and lengthy. I have packets here if anyone would like to see some of the information. And again, this is just brief summaries of some of these escalated cases where FLOC has been instrumental. Thank you for your time.

Good morning, Madam Executive and esteemed board members and guests. Thank you for your time for allowing me the opportunity to speak. I'm going to speak kind of quick before you and the public today. My name is Ryan Gulley. I currently serve as the chief of police for the Village of Manhattan in the suburb of Will County, where I also reside. We are a small community, but we're a community that continues to grow, the sixth fastest at the current moment, and currently take great pride in being the sixth safest community in the state of Illinois. Before I move forward, I think it's important to make one thing clear. I'm not a registered Republican nor Democrat. I often find myself voting based on common sense and what I believe is best for my family and my values. In fact, I voted for both sides of the aisle. I mentioned this because it is important in today's discussion remains about facts, public safety, accountability, and what is best for the residents we all represent. I also want to acknowledge the chiefs and speakers who have spoken before me. They have presented facts and data regarding LPRs, and I think that those facts are important to consider when discussing this technology. The Village of Manhattan, like other communities, has taken steps to be transparent about LPRs. We have a transparency portal on our Village website where residents can learn about how LPR data is used, who it was shared with, and how it was shared. We believe the residents deserve and understand how this technology is being used in their community. Transparency and accountability are not things that we should be afraid of, they should be things we embrace. Well, I'm not going to specifics thoroughly as some of the other police chiefs before me have. I want to make one comparison. Most of us use the tollway system where cash is accepted rarely anymore. Instead, we place transponders or stickers in our vehicle that contains technology, oftentimes a chip, capable of identifying our vehicle and our license plates. We then provide our personal banking and credit card information so that our license plate or the transponder can be associated with the account and the toll can be collected. This is technology being used to identify A vehicle facility and track a transaction, unlike a use for law enforcement purpose. That's how we will actually send you a bill a violation. If you fail to pay flock does not have that capability to do that. The question for us today is not whether technology exists. It does. The question is whether a local municipality should have the ability to determine through their own elected officials and policies, whether. This technology is appropriate for their communities. That brings me to why I'm here today. I, like the other chiefs of police who have spoken for me, are asking Will County to authorize an intergovernmental agreement with the villages and other municipalities that would allow municipalities to use the right-of-way of Will County, not the approval of Flock. This would allow each municipality to make their own decision based on board action. And I want to be very clear of what we're asking for. We're not asking for flock. We're asking Will County board members to approve an intergovernmental agreement that is already in existence to use the right of way once a local municipality decides that they would or would not like to place fly cameras in that right of way. Thank you for your time.

Good morning. My name is Joyce Hale and I am a resident of the Cedar Glen subdivision. I'm here today to respectfully ask that you vote no in the rezoning request of Badger. This type of industrial business does not belong directly adjacent to an established residential neighborhood. While there are many concerns about traffic, noise, and overall impact to the community, one issue that still has not been adequately addressed is the water usage. There is nothing in place preventing Badger from drilling wells on this property and potentially putting our community's water supply at risk. My own family is facing the need to drill our well deeper in the coming weeks at the cost of nearly $20,000. To simply ensure we have adequate water. This is without adding the enormous demands that this operation would create. The current proposal is for approximately a 30,000 square foot building and 30 trucks. Yet we have already heard about plans to eventually expand to twice that size and potentially twice the number of trucks. That would put even greater pressure on our water supply. We have been told that Badger plans to connect to Illinois American Water, but there's nothing guaranteeing that. In fact, during a recent meeting with the village mayor, the Badger COO reportedly stated that the company would drill five wells if necessary because money was not a problem. He made other concerning comments during the same meeting. If drilling the wells is truly an option, how can this possibly be approved without protecting the water supply of the residents who already live there? At this point, residents have serious concerns about the reassurances we have been given today will actually hold true in the future. We have heard statements that have been inconsistent and untrue, and that makes it very difficult to trust these promises if this property is rezoned. We have been accused of complaining as though we don't have the right to stand against this. Most of you do not live in Homer Glen. You will not have to live with the consequences and the decisions made here today. We will. We ask you that you listen to the residents as well as the village mayor and the township supervisor who understand the concerns of this community. Once this property is rezoned, we cannot simply undo that decision. Please protect the residents who are already here, protect our water, and protect the character of our community. I respectfully ask that you vote no today. Thank you.

Good morning, I'm Sue Stylin, supervisor for Homer Township, and you've had a month to evaluate and go over the item for the ordinance 26211, the Badger rezoning of the parcel. And I could argue all sorts of points that have been raised, but the most important one is that the Village of Homer Glen, the City of Lockport, and Homer Township all oppose the rezoning of this parcel. Twenty five years ago, twenty two thousand residents in Homer township joined together so that they could control the destiny of the development of their community. And they volunteer time talents. There were a lot of people that thought it could never develop. And today it's a thriving community. A lot of people are moving there, building beautiful homes. I believe it's an asset to Will County. The commercial base is 98% occupied. There is only 2% vacancy, which means that businesses are coming. But what's not in that plan is the C4 zoning of that parcel. And so today, I would like to ask you to respect and support the residents of that community and oppose the rezoning. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Kathleen Lee Hockey. I'm here to speak on behalf of Mark Galron, who couldn't make it today. I have personally lived in Homer Glen my entire life. My father still lives adjacent to the parcel that Badger is looking at. This is the fifth time that Mark and the residents of Homer Glen have stood before you regarding this issue. The story is still the same. A light industrial operation does not belong on this parcel. The opposition is growing. Our entire subdivision is energized against this case. We now have 927 signatures on an online petition. All of the various objections are all reasonable and valid and have been voiced over five meetings now. Water, noise, traffic, pollution, safety. Badger has asked for two continuances to work out an alternate location within the village of Homer Glen, but we're right back here voting on the same parcel. The parcel in question has zoning designation C2R2. That zoning designation was a place when many of us in the Cedar Glen subdivision made the investment decision to buy a home here. That zoning is consistent with the township's view of the use of this land. That zoning is consistent with the comprehensive plan of the village of Homer Glen. A single business and a single real estate agent are asking for you to change it to C4. Please say no. Our two board members who represent us in District 4 are a solid no vote. Four members of the Land Use Committee voted no. There are a few board members that have been vocal about this case and its merits, and I suspect that there may be two to four more no votes out there on the board. I know 20 of you do not represent the district that we live in, but I am asking you to think about your constituents. What if a light industrial operation decided to buy a parcel next to their neighborhood? Would you support your residents and vote no? On behalf of Mark Gallron and the residents of Cedar Glen and Homer Glen, I urge you to vote no.

Hello everyone. Good morning. My name is Benny Colasano. I'm actually a new homeowner in the Cedar Glen neighborhood that we've been talking about with the Badger Project and a lifetime Homer Glen resident. Myself and fellow local 900 plus petition signing residents are asking the board to deny or defer the Badger case until the potential impact of this industrial operation on our groundwater and private wells has been independently evaluated. The new home that I just purchased depends on a private. Well, that's approximately 200 feet deep. Many of my neighbors have, as they have already have stated, I've had well issues and requirements to double up the wells stuff. And there's already been aquifer issues in our areas. but uh like many myself um still remain at a well depth between 200 and 250 feet that difference matters badgers proposing an operation that requires substantial amounts of water before this property is rezoned to accommodate that operation i believe there are several basic questions that need clear documented answers. How much groundwater will this facility actually be permitted and capable of pumping per day? How deep will the well be? Will it draw from the same aquifer or water bearing formations that supply our residential wells? Has a qualified hydrogeologist Performed an adequate pumping test and determine the potential draw down at nearby residential properties specifically, including shallower wells. Like myself and my neighbors, and most importantly, if our wells lose capacity after this operation begins pumping, who's responsible for restoring our water supply or paying to deepen our wells? That shouldn't be a burden on the homeowners and families like myself and I and my neighbors. These questions should be answered before rezoning, not after residents experience a problem. I'm not standing here claiming that I can prove Badger will damage my well, but I'm asking something much simpler. Why should homeowners be required to accept that risk when the applicant has not demonstrated that our water supply will be protected? Our wells aren't an inconvenience that can simply be replaced. They're how our families get water. They're essential part of our value and marketability of our homes. And once the zoning is granted a high volume industrial water user is established, it will be extremely difficult to undo these consequences to surrounding homeowners and families. There's also an alternative require this industrial operation to obtain its water from appropriate public infrastructure rather than placing a risk on the aquifer. Um, the applicant is asking this board for the benefit of a zoning change. I respect respectfully believe the applicant should therefore carry the burden of demonstrating with independent scientific evidence that it's proposed groundwater use will not materially interfere with existing residential wells until that has been established. I respectfully ask that you deny or defer the badger rezoning. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Executive County Board. I'm Karen Robertson. I'm a lifelong Joliet area Will County resident, and I'm here for the camera issue. And rather than regurgitate already spoken comments, I do want to acknowledge that, yes, they do have some good qualities and they have solved some crimes, but they've also been highly abused. But I think the elephant in the room here that nobody is talking about is the fact that a single company will hold endless gigabytes of our private data, and then they can sell it to anybody willing to pay but to the highest bidder. And we're seeing that happen over and over again, not just locally, but state, nationally, internationally. The people with the big money just pay, and what's gonna happen to our data? And oh, by the way, I have been flocked. You can look it up to see if you've been flocked. I drive a lot for work. I have been flocked, and so... You know, so far I'm cool, but it's what the misuse of the data, the potential misuse of the data. And then just the other thing that just kind of struck me is, you know, we've got people here taking their time off of work because this is work hours for us. Who are asking for things that they think are in the best interest of their community and most of these things are bipartisan issues and it's not just been here. It's been the data center. It's been other things where you've got resounding members of the community coming out in a bipartisan way saying we don't want this or slow down and stop. Let's put some guardrails in place before we do this. And I think that's all we're asking here. this technology is moving so quickly before we just blanket go, yes, let's do this. Let's continue this agreement. Can we put some guardrails in place and not say we're going to put them in place and do the agreement, put them in place, then extend the agreement. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Delinda Herrod and I am the executive director of Fairmont Community Partnership Group, Incorporated. I know there are many communities throughout Will County that face challenges. However, I am not aware of another community that has had to continually fight as many battles as Fairmont simply to receive fair and equal treatment. We have stood before the Lockport City Council attended countless Lockport Township meetings, and now for at least the second time, we've had to come before this County Board to address another serious challenge facing our community. Fairmont is tired of fighting, but when something is wrong, we will continue to show up. And today we are here about something very basic, fairness. I'm asking you not to reappoint the members of the Board of Review. We are talking about hundreds of vacant lots receiving significant tax reductions associated with homestead exemptions. These are vacant lots. There are no homes on them for anyone to occupy as a resident. Let me show you what this means in real dollars. My family owns a vacant lot immediately next to one of these vacant lots. We pay in 2025 $489.66 in property taxes. The neighboring vacant lot paid $60.18. That is a difference of $429.48 on two vacant lots sitting side by side. I am aware of other vacant lots where the annual tax is as low as $18. And this is not an isolated issue involving one parcel. This tax treatment has been applied to hundreds of vacant lots in and around our community, while the people who actually live in Fairmont continue to pay more than their fair share. This past week, the majority of our Fairmont community was without power and families lost refrigerators and freezers full of food. Our already financially strained families are now facing the additional expense of replacing hundreds of dollars worth of food and paying hundreds more to have trees and other storm debris removed from our properties. And right now I have a storm damage tree from one of these vacant properties hanging over my garage with the utility line dropping into my driveway. I have contacted the owner and he says I pulled back the branches away from the garage. The other branch is stable and the tree is staple. I am not an arborist, but I beg to differ. We have one other community member, Stella Knuckles, who has signed up, and she asked me to deliver her comment today.

Sorry, we can't do that. If you want to leave that with the board, you can leave the comment with the board.

I think I'll make a motion for her to add.

The motion by Revis to continue reading, is there a second? Second, any discussion? Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Richmond, Williams, Dean Schlattman, Ogalla, Pretzel, Butler, Newquist, Balich, Axley, Brooks, Winfrey, Bullock, Logan, Freeman, Revis, Mitchell, Ortiz, Berkowitz, Hickey, Costa, Trainier, Van Dyne.

Carry on, Ms. Parrott.

I am not an arborist, but I beg to differ. I have photos if you all would like to see them. It looks like an accident waiting to happen in the next severe storm. These are not abstract problems. These are real consequences and real financial losses for people who are already financially strained. Fairmont did not seek this fight. It was placed before our community. People have jobs, they have families, they have responsibilities. However, I have set aside my time today to be the person who carries the results of this vote back to our communities prior to last month. Members of this board could say. They were unaware of what was happening. You cannot say that today. The information has been presented. The documentation has been provided. You now know what has occurred. So today the question is no longer whether you know. The question is what are you going to do about it? If you believe this tax treatment of hundreds of vacant lots was appropriate, then vote accordingly. But if you believe that a homestead exemption should be connected to a homestead, and that taxpayers should be treated fairly, then your vote should reflect that as well. Fairmont is not asking for special treatment, we're asking for fair treatment. This may be your last opportunity to be able to say, when the opportunity was in front of me, I did the right thing. Before you cast your vote, please take the time to read Matthew 25, verse 40. Thank you. You have an opportunity to right a wrong today. Do not reappoint the members of the Board of Review. Thank you. And may I now read Ms. Knuckles? Okay. Okay. Good morning, my name is Stella Knuckles. Please wave your hand so they know you're a real person. Okay. Within the last 60 days, two trees from the vacant property next to my home have fallen into my yard, causing me significant financial loss. This property was formerly owned by CC Ryder and has since been transferred to another investor. Yet, as I understand it, this vacant property continues to receive the same tax benefits that we are here discussing today. I have worked with code enforcement in an effort to contact the current owner and make them aware of what is happening on their property. Mail sent to the owner has been returned and attempts to reach them by telephone have been unsuccessful because their voicemail is full. We are simply trying to notify the owner about conditions on the land they own, land that they apparently are not regularly visiting or maintaining. I am a senior citizen. I maintain my home and pay my taxes, yet I have been left to bear the financial consequences of trees falling from a vacant property that continues to benefit from substantial tax relief. I'm asking you to consider whether that is fair to the people who actually live here, maintain our homes and pay our taxes. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Paula Leonard, and I'm a homeowner and resident of the Fairmont community and a taxpayer in Will County. I also happen to have a master's degree in public administration, so I'm very familiar with how local government should work. As a registered voter, I have a concern about a vote plan for today's meeting. All three members of the board of review are up for this board to approve the reappointment. It has come to my attention recently that the Board of Review granted the owner of at least 212 parcels of vacant property in Fairmont an assessment reduction of approximately 80%, thus reducing their property taxes by a similar amount. That's 80% less. So if they were paying $100, they're now paying $20. The tax dollars that were lost in this reduction were then redistributed to other property owners in the area, causing a not necessary burden on the community. Much of this, these funds were going to our school district. So this is affecting our children. In addition, these reductions were granted through 2027. The Board of Review then justified the four-year reduction to Illinois Statute 35 ILCS 200-16-80, more commonly known as the Homestead Exemption. This is the statute that allows a quadrennial reduction to this type of owner-occupied property. These parcels are vacant and these concerns have been brought repeatedly to the board of review over the past few years. Little or nothing has been done to correct this inequity. This brings me to a few questions. Is this a common practice in Will County? I hope not. Do some property owners get blanket multiple properties reductions on their assessments and tax bills? What other areas in the county have similar discrepancies? How often is the homestead exemption misapplied by the Board of Review? And finally, why are the residents in Fairmont picking up the property tax tab for an investor who seems to have overbought vacant land but doesn't want to pay for the costs that every other property owner is paying? As a registered Will County voter residing in Will County and Fairmont particularly, I urge every member of this board to vote no for the reappointment of these three members of the Board of Review. They're not doing their job. Fairmont has generally had a good relationship with Will County and this board, and I hope that you will be able to make the right choice to correct this inequity. Thank you.

Good morning. I'm Carl beverage. I am a half century resident of will county and of the Fairmont school district area. And I'm speaking on behalf of myself and other members of the community who oppose. The reappointment of the county board of review. Uh, by past actions, as you've just heard from other speakers. Uh, the current members of the border review have not performed their duties in compliance with Illinois statutes. Uh, and, uh, have therefore not demonstrated an ability to apply tax law. equitably to all residents in the area. At least one owner of property, a non-resident, is getting a break that amounts to about $300,000 over a four-year period. That amount of money, the cost of it is being spread to all other property owners. Property owners who have similar properties nearby don't get the same break. So I implore you and particularly my board members, Mr. Oxley, Ms. Williams, and all of you board members, vote no on this resolution regarding the reappointment of the current Board of Review. Start over, get the process right. Thank you.

My name is Sue Ann Curtis. I have a PhD in cultural ecology. I've worked for federal agencies for many years and now I find that my property located along Oak Avenue at the corner of Oak and Briggs where we have a horse farm. We're going to experience potential problems Started because of the CC writer property that's two hundred acres. Less than a mile or two from our farm. To do what what's it going to do with land? How is that going to impact us? this property is centered in horse properties so having open land to a lot of people hey it's money development but for horse farms which contribute a great deal of money to the local area we did a calculation based on the survey it's about a hundred and thirty thousand a year profit to the area within five to ten miles of what this is taking place so it is a horse area keeping open land is important and to be owned by people who are paying the taxes on their property what's being proposed is unknown it could impact us and the impacts could be very serious so we're voting or your votes please vote no on the re a portion to the Board of Review. Please vote no on that for these board members because they've been advocating something like this, which could hurt a lot of people. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Sylvia Dotson. I'm a Lockport resident, been one practically all my life. I'm asking you to vote no. to the re-election or the point of report review. But what gets to me is I'm really kind of teed off because they said the squeaky wheel usually get greased. We squeak, we don't get greased. Our wheels don't get greased. Our wheels are looked over. They fall on deaf ears. They always say, is that your wife coming again? Yes. Our taxes went up. And most of us are. retired on Social Security, but a tax break to someone who wants to own all those properties is totally, totally, totally uncalled for. We appointed or elected the officials when we go out and vote. And so the only thing I'm asking is for you all to listen to us. Instead of saying, it's not my job, it's not my job, it's that one, it's that one. All of you are elected. You come on our doors and knock at our doors. Help us in the unincorporated area, in the Fairmont area. When my husband and I and the whole community chop down trees to get them out the streets, we can't even get them picked up. And then when I go ask them, they're coming, they're coming, they're coming. When are they coming? We want some justice in our area. We want to be listened to. We want to be taken care of just like we appointed y'all take care of us because our votes must count to you. So let our actions and our feelings count to you also.

Good morning, County Board. My name is Patrick Young, Business Representative at the Operating Engineers, Local 150. I came here today to speak in support of the rezoning of the Badger Daylight property. As a young agent many years ago, when Badger came into the area, I met with them. They became a signatory and started employing operating engineers Again, many years ago, I'm not gonna date myself. Through that time, through the three states that Local 150 is in, between Iowa, Illinois, and Indiana, Badger Daylighting employs approximately 150 operating engineers throughout Local 150's jurisdiction. They've been a good employer. They're gonna be a good neighbor here. This is a good use of this property. I went out and I looked at this property. To the west is a storage facility. To the east is the Moose Club. There's only one resident on there that wrote a letter in favor of the project. There's a landscape company. There's a trucking company. Up and down 159th, there is many commercial properties. Will County will reap some benefits as the property is not fully needed. They will donate a portion of the property to the Will County Forest Preserve by the creek in the back. And then the two neighbors that are adjacent, they're willing to do a berm so that there is separation. Please vote yes for this project or this project. rezoning as Badger will be a good neighbor. Thank you.

Good morning. I'm Logan Malott, COO of Badger Daylighting, resident of Will County. My family and I have lived in New Lenox for over 13 years now. So just to address a few things, the water for the trucks that we use to do the digging every day, today we acquire water from publicly available sources. We've said that. We have, uh, meter agreements with countless municipalities around the Chicago land area and have committed multiple times that we'll either get the water there from Illinois, American water on site, uh, for the truck filling, or we'll fill off site just as we do in Shanahan, Melrose Park, Arlington Heights, Portage, Indiana. Today we fill all over. We have an agreement with Lockport right down the road to fill the truck. So that. You know, depleting the aquifer shouldn't be a concern because we do not plan to fill our trucks there with water. Since the last meeting, we did meet with the mayor of Homer Glen. She brought forth a property that is approximately 600 feet to the west on 159th Street. This property was not publicly available and is still not publicly available for sale. There are two businesses operating there today, a furniture store and a landscaping company. It's approximately 9.8 acres, drops off significantly at 159th, and then there's a hilltop, and then the Forest Preserve owns the rear. So it's It's just literally not enough space to do our development with the other two businesses that are operating there and the lower portion of that property being very, very low topography. So, like we mentioned, we plan to build a berm to block the residents. We've talked about having motion sensor lights on the outside of the building. The only lights that would be on in the back are on the front of the building facing 159th. And outside of that, again, we appreciate your support. Bradger's a proud employer of Will County and will continue to be so. Thank you.

Yeah, yes, one one attorney for badger and also a lifetime will county resident and currently in for the past many decades, a resident of district for remembering what this is. This is a request for rezoning a map amendment from our two and C two to C four on a project that is until today before any of us was around, sat unused without a user. Your land use staff found that it met the criteria under ordinance for the map amendment. Your planning and zoning commission recommended in favor of it. Okay, this is C4 highway commercial zoning on a state highway, Illinois Route 7, five lanes wide that handles about 20,000 vehicles a day. That's where it goes. It's also adjacent to industrial one zoning immediately to the west. But getting beyond all that and getting beyond your ordinance and your criteria, talking about this user, I've done land use cases now, as many of you know, for well over 30 years, okay? Come before this board many, many times over the decades. I can't remember. My memory doesn't serve me with a client that has said yes more than Badger. In fact, I haven't heard him say no to the requests of the village and neighbors for ways on this property to operate unless it had any impact, any perceived impact on the neighbors. When the moose asked for something, they said yes. When the village representing neighbors asked them if they could move the building further away to the west, they moved it as far as they could, moving 100 feet away to the west. When it was asked for buffering, they asked, they said, we'll build a berm. And it says, then the request was, can you build it higher? They said, sure, how high do you want it? And that's what they said they'd build. Then, when there were concerns about taking down any mature trees along residential lots to the east, they said, we'll go you one better. Where this commercial use touches those properties, there's mature trees, we'll deed that property away to those folks. And then, As many of you know, as to the property that's unused, this 38 acres or so, of which we're going to use 12 to 14, they've committed in writing to the Forest Preserve District by LOI, responded to by the Forest Preserve District to donate the balance for the preservation of it, going all the way up to Fitbit Creek. In the end, I've never worked with anybody that's worked as hard to make something fit, and in the end, this is a proper use on Illinois Route 759th Street. Thank you.

Hi, I'm Bonnie Willis. I am the realtor and I'm also a resident of Homer Glen Township and I live across the street from where this development is going to go. I've looked and thought about this really hard. Obviously my reputation is on the line for that. And I feel in my heart that this property, based on the renderings, which we have shared with the county of what they want to do is aesthetically very pleasing. The traffic is only going to add point zero three percent more than what is already going through there. Um, they've got a 2 and a half acre pond in the front. They got a 4 and a half acre pond in the back. And they've got the berms and fences that they plan to do. Um, I could can see and being that I have listed this property, I can understand there could be a lot worse. Um. developments that can come in there that can usually come in with a special use permit or come in and do things that I don't think anybody in that neighborhood would really like to see and what I'm saying is that could be picnic you know loud music it could be landscapers hard landscapers it could be a lot of different things that could go in there and be easily approved so I feel that with Badger and the way they want to accommodate and how While they've reached out and have listened to everybody, I feel very comfortable in this. I know that it was mentioned about the commercial development and that there's only two spaces left and Homer is growing, but that area is also over by Bell Road 143rd, 159th and Bell Road and that and there's another beautiful development that wants to go east of Bell Road that has beautiful restaurants and housing and everything and so that commercial area is probably going to go more that way and New Lenox the other night at their board meeting they are looking to approve 119 acres at the corner of Route 6 and Cedar which is really I don't do miles I do minutes less than 10 minutes from where a lot of people could get to in Homer and they're gonna have grocery stores, they're gonna have restaurants, they're gonna have all of that. And as I said in Lockport, they still have spaces and there's a lot of development going there. So most commercial business, national brands, grocery stores and things want to go where the action is right now. The people have been trying to sell this property for 10 years. They are stakeholders in the Homer Glen. They have several lots and they want to sell. And they've got a viable buyer and a good buyer. The petition, I understand they're saying it's 800, but I do know that in the local area that right there, there's not close to 800 people that would be affected because Badger would be coming out and going towards 355. And the other part of that is... That petition was also across Cook County. I heard Plainfield, Joliet, and there was a lot of people that signed that outside of the immediate area. So I guess that's my time. So that's pretty much what I wanted to cover, and thanks for your time again.

Good morning. I'm Larry LeCascio. I own the property that is the better option for Badger. I hope to clarify some misconceptions. Despite what's been said, my property remains the best option for Badger in Homer Glen. We're next to I-355. We've got perfect access with a full median break intersection. We've got privacy for Badger being located between Super Storage and the Forest Preserve. There's no subdivision and residence right next door. And the village of Homer Glen is willing to provide the zoning and all that Badger needs to make this their new home. With proper investment and site work, it is the right choice. Yes, it's more expensive. The better location usually is. We hope you will come back. We welcome you and we encourage you to work this out for everyone's best interest. We are open and we would love to do a deal with you. This is the right choice for the community and I encourage you to do right by the community.

Hi, there, um, my name is Jeffrey white. Uh, I'm here to talk about the license plate readers, uh, despite what an early gentleman had said, uh, this isn't an issue that only concerns fringe on the right or the left. Uh, I'm a 10 year resident of will county. Uh, I'm a taxpayer. I'm a neighbor and I'm also importantly a voter. Um. We've heard a lot from a lot of officers in the flock representative, uh, about how, uh, the good things about flock. Um, if you notice every person who has said something good about these license plate readers. Is somebody who it either is here in an official capacity. I think there's a lot of people who have a lot of concerns about how this technology is being used. It's a bipartisan issue. If you're on the right, I mean, think of a few years ago when we were dealing with all of the COVID stuff, you could think about how those could have been tracked. If you're on the left, think about how a federal agency like ICE could be using this data in order to track and surveil the constituents. If you really want to know how about how the people feel about this put it on the ballot. That'd be an easy thing to do, in my opinion, our founders put in place specifically checks on power because of how the powers could be misused. I appreciate the police that are. Uh, here and I appreciate that they have a difficult job in front of them. Um, but I also think that as a society, we have decided that it's worth their jobs being a little bit harder in order to protect privacy. Um. We've heard multiple examples today of people who have been misusing this technology. And it isn't just about the police officers. How's this company using our data? What happens if they decide that they need to boost profits at some point and all of a sudden are selling this to any type of third party? Where you are, obviously they could Advertise to you something like that. Um, also what happens if they get hacked? It's not even just maybe they have bad, uh. Motives there's a lot of people out there with bad motives and if they get hacked, they have all of this data. Um, I think there are way too many concerns and questions. And I think that you should absolutely vote no on the expansion of the flock cameras. And we should also take all of the existing ones down. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Angelina Maschiato. I am a resident of Joliet. I'm here to speak about the LPRs. BLOC's main talking point was that they will never use facial recognition, but I asked the board to consider the ongoing cost of safeguards, audits, and oversight, and even possible litigation, and compare that to what the residents actually want, which is more physical police presence in our community, and to build that community up from within. I work in public safety and have trained with municipal canine search teams. In fact, neighboring Lockport has a full-time USAR dog who is incredible at his job, as is his handler. Real community resources like this explains why communities like Lockport don't actually have a need for mass automated surveillance, nor do they want it. The core issue with FLOC is the actual infrastructure being built today. Once a network is in place, adding features like facial recognition, for example, just takes a software update if they decide to change their minds down the road. We already have proven measures in protecting our neighborhoods. I'll leave you with a few quotes from our founding fathers, lawyers, and others that helped build our great nation. Privacy is rarely lost in one fell swoop. It is usually eroded over time, little bits dissolving almost imperceptibly until we finally begin to notice how much is gone. Daniel J. Solove. Those who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin. An avidity to push, punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of the laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression. For if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach himself. Thomas Paine. And finally, I urge everyone to read the 1775 essay by one of our revolutionaries, Patrick Henry, Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death. It's about an eight minute read and it's incredible. Thank you for your time.

I'm kind of nervous doing this, so bear with me. My name is Raymond Rogers. I am a resident of Cedar Glen subdivision. Been there for 39 years. I'm first going to talk about the subdivision. Most of you people probably don't even know Cedar Glen subdivision. There's 80 homes, 82 homes, something like that. It's a quiet community. We have no curbs. We have no sewers. We have no fire hydrants. We pay probably 80, 800 to a million dollars in taxes a year. So we don't ask to come to the County for very much, but we do want the County to respect to, um, main things in life, air and water. And this company is going to take both of these things from us. Drinking water for our kids, my grandkids, and the future people. This company, I'd like to ask them a question. Why did you pick this place? Name me one good thing. that's going to come out of this. There's not one. There's not one good thing that's going to come out of this spot where they want to go. Like the gentleman that was four people before me, he's got a good spot. This well water by us is great water. There's no rust. It's clean water. The water that we use eventually goes back in the ground. It takes a long time, but it stays. This company is taking it and leaving the community. And that's a lot of water. This community only uses maybe 24,000 gallons a day, according to EPA online. The company is going to use twice that in one day. So they're robbing the water from us. That is number one. And the traffic on 159th, it's gotta be more than 3%. Don't listen to numbers. Everybody lies about numbers. Think about the American people, they wanna live here. These people don't care about us. They just want this spot. For what? Maybe one good reason, the company. You can't. That's all I got to say.

All right. Thank you, everyone. We're gonna move on to old business. All resolutions and ordinances from the July 16th, 2026 board meeting have been signed and returned.

Moving on to item number two. We're gonna go Chair Prezzo.

Thank you, Madam Executive. First up under old business status of July 16th, 2026 resolutions and ordinances. That's already done. You're number two. I'm sorry. Sorry. First up today, zoning case 26-020, the Badger Daylight Incorporations requesting a map amendment from C2 slash R2 to C4 in Homer Township at the vacant property West 159th Street in Homer Glen, Illinois. PZC voted four to three recommending approval. Land use and development was three to four, thereby denying the request and I so move.

Motion by Pretzel. 2nd, and by turner any discussion. All right, I understand that there was an objection made. We need a super majority vote of 17 votes. Madam clerk please call the roll. Richmond Williams.

Okay.

Pretzel yes. Butler new quest. Balich, Brooks, Winfrey, Bullock, Logan, Freeman, Revis, Mitchell, Ortiz, Berkowitz, Hickey, Costa, Trainier, Van Dyne. Oh, sorry. Actually, I apologize.

Go back to her.

Okay.

With 16 members in the affirmative, the motion fails.

Moving on to new business. We're going to go back to it. We have new business now, so we'll go back to land use.

So at this time, I'm going to be given my state of the county and fiscal 2027 budget address.

If we would like, if you don't mind, we'll take a quick 10 minute break. I see a lot of people getting antsy. We'll take 10 minute break and we'll come back and give the report. All right, good morning. All right. Thank you everyone we're coming back as our. As a reminder, I think some people were surprised we do have our state of the county and our budget address. So, we are going to present that. Next.

Right.

Well, good morning again. I know it's a little unusual because we voted on some things, and this is usually done at the very beginning.

But again, I think we can all appreciate to take the time to look back at what we've done over the year and start preparing for our future. So Speaker Van Dyne, Leader Richmond, Leader Williams, members of the county board and countywide elected officials, it is my honor to present to you the state of the county, a record of our shared accomplishments over the year, and a proposed budget that sustains our continued success. The state of the county is an opportunity to slow down and reflect on the positives. What we've been able to get done for the people of Will County and the power of working together for our communities. Sometimes it's big things like a brand new VAC center. Sometimes it is a lot less eventful like digitizing records, but both have an impact on our daily operations. Accomplishments belong to no one person. They are a team effort. We all play a role in the story that I am going to present today. While so much of the spotlight over the next few months will be on the budget, I know we can't have this conversation without first reflecting on what we have been able to do over the last year with our current budget. So much of the day-to-day work gets lost in the shuffle, but it represents the daily work and a positive impact for the people we serve. Whether it's empowering law enforcement to protect our communities, expanding transportation access for seniors, building and repairing local roads that people rely on every day, growing our economy or modernizing how we deliver services, these accomplishments reflect our ability to improve the quality of life for Will County residents and ensure a stronger future. I wanted to kick off this conversation with some numbers. These numbers tell a story of the scale of our countywide work. 900 the annual number of ordinance violation reports received by our land use department's administration enforcement division over the past five years despite this high volume director tim mack tells me that they have been able to secure compliance in over 90 percent of these cases helping our communities and neighbors stay safe and healthy 699,945. The total number of 911 and first responder calls for the service handled by Larraway Community Communication Centers, representing 40% of countywide calls handled by the three centers. 883. The total number of animals received at animal protection services, which has included dogs, cats, rabbits, chickens, it says sugar gliders, I'm not sure what that is. Yeah, there it goes. Donkeys and even a fish. 800,000, the total number of pounds recycled electronics that a resource recovery and energy division has saved from a landfill over the last year. 47,000, the total number of birth, marriage, and death certificates issued by County Clerk Parker's office in one year. 469,127, the total number of civil and criminal case filings received by the Circuit Clerk's Office. These are more than numbers on a spreadsheet. They reflect a county government that is providing services that reflect our residents throughout our very large and diverse county. Our offices are only as strong as the people who work within them, and I have the honor to see the positive impact that happens when county staff go above and beyond to make a difference in people's lives. Thank you to our county employees. Across the board, our departments have worked to manage the demand of a growing county by modernizing operations in our service delivery to better serve the community. A significant example is our countywide transition to a new countywide system for community alert. Led by Will County 911 and supported by our EMA, the Smart 911 transition is eliminating barriers for emergency and community notifications, consolidating systems, promoting unity between agencies, increasing first responders' ability to communicate with the public, and reducing costs for local government. Another is the Circuit Clerk's Office, where Clerk Andrea Chastain has completed a transition to a fileless traffic courtroom, reducing costs, eliminating redundancy, and improving efficiencies for judicial operations. Additionally, the supervisor of assessments office just completed a digitization of nearly 10,000 records over the past year, providing a more efficient system of accessing data. This modernization will serve the office well as they prepare for their quadrennial assessment when they will work to review the accuracy of property assessments throughout the county. This is an integral role of county government, ensuring that school districts and local governments can count on us for that accuracy. This is an area where we lead color counties with the least amount of open appeals before the Illinois Property Tax Appeal Board. But modernization efforts can only get us so far. A core principle of my administration has been that we need to responsibly plan for the increased demand on services that will follow continued population growth. One such effort is taking place at Animal Protection Service, where we've implemented a study to plan for how best to manage the influx of animals received in calls for service around the county. Another is our facilities department space needs, where we are thoroughly examining every inch of our county office footprint, ensuring that we maintain a multi-year capital plan. Responsible planning has already made a difference in expanding key services to our residents. That includes opening the offices at 1300 Copperfield, offering expanded space for both our Veterans Assistance Commission and Workforce Service Division in a centralized, easy, accessible location, all while reducing our leased office space cost. This has already made a world of difference, especially for our VAC. In April, we cut the ribbon on the new one-stop shop for veteran services with more than 270,000 increase in space than what they had previously. This new office is also the heart of the first unified veteran support campus in Illinois, creating opportunities for collaboration between the VAC, VA, and Hope Manor Housing. Will County veterans can now access benefits assistance, mental health, and peer support, a brand new health and wellness program, and other potentially life-changing services. The VAC has a complete team of accredited veteran service officers, which has reduced wait times, increased appointment availability, and improved their ability for clients to access state and federal benefits. This transformational change comes as the demand for behavioral health services continue to grow nationwide for our veteran community. With this new location, Superintendent Jen Sollum tells me that they are already on track to surpass their local impact last year when they assisted more than 4,000 veterans, dependents, and their survivors. They processed over 1,700 benefit applications and secured over $40 million in federal benefits for Will County households. Responsible planning has put us on track to become a national leader in veterans care, and I want to congratulate the entire VAC team on all they've been able to accomplish in their new home. And I know we have many members here joining us today. The same spirit of responsibility expanding services led to our historic transformation of how seniors and people with disabilities receive transportation services. When we first examined our county-wide dial-up rides network, we found a system filled with deficiencies and inequities. A resident with mobility issues was very much stranded by their zip code, how far their local bus service would take them, and what amenities they could reach within a painfully short radius. Some of those zip codes had no service at all, trapping too many people in a situation where they were 100% reliant on friends and family for a trip to a store or a doctor's office, if they even had that support network available. Three years after we developed a plan to fix this, I'm proud to say we have a safe, reliable, county-wide paratransit system for seniors and people with disabilities that provide full access. Access Will County Paratransit has grown from 16 townships to covering all 24 of our townships. The number of seniors that can now access the service has doubled, and we have greatly reduced the number of trip denials due to operating hours or small service radius. The demand we have seen since this demonstrates just how important it is for us to have this service. We estimate that we'll be reaching nearly 45,000 rides by the end of this year. This makes a real difference in the lives of people throughout the county. Our mobility manager, Colin Phillips, engages with a minimum of 40 residents a day, registering them with a reliable curb-to-curb transportation system and hearing how important it is for them to feel an increased level of independence and freedom. whether that's the students with the Project Search Transition Program in Plainfield who have been able to use the service to travel to their first jobs and learn essential skills, or it's the senior citizen who felt literally trapped in her home after her husband and son's death because she had no one to assist her to get to the places she needed. After finally being eligible for Access Will County, she told Collin that she could live like a normal person again. I want to thank this board for continuing to support this program. It is truly a highlight and something I hear about regularly. The support should also guide us as we work together to address challenges that face families throughout Will County. And we can't deny that there are challenges. With an aging population, Sunny Hill Nursing Home has provided a stable, welcoming environment for local seniors. The team at Sunny Hill work around the clock to ensure the residents feel at home and families feel confident that their loved ones are in good hands. All it takes is one step through those doors to understand their commitment to an environment that fosters enrichment and independence. That is why they built such a strong local reputation and are ranked third in the state for their level of care. As Will County residents get older, services for seniors remain at a forefront in many individual minds. Sunny Hill serves as an example of how we can meet the needs of our residents. Rising costs and national economic uncertainty have also impacted households in all corners of the county. We have seen an increase in food insecurity, cuts in healthcare, and reductions in critical services. It has made housing security and the dream of home ownership so much more difficult for many of our local families. Addressing this crisis has been top of the mind of our Community Development Division under the leadership of Director Martha Sochkov. The team has worked to leverage federal and state funds to keep families in their homes in a period of rising costs. Programs such as our housing stabilization program and the tenant based rental assistance program has saved over 100 households from eviction and homelessness. Also, their down payment assistance program and security deposit program have helped over 350 residents secure housing since their launch. The division is also thinking proactively to increase local home availability. Working with their partners, projects such as the Wellness Village sponsored by Will Grundy Medical Clinic to develop 24 units for housing insecure residents are becoming a needed reality. These are examples of local challenges that require county response. For many of these, if you don't take the lead, no one else will, and our community will be negatively impacted. Hey folks, such as the case with Preston Heights residents. When Preston Heights residents came forward with concerns about their water quality, countless residents were faced with water main breaks, flooding, and service disruptions from a system that dated back to 1950s. This was a real public health issue that impacted more than 700 households. During our conversations, the former Southeast Joliet Sanitary District could not continue operating in a fiscally responsible manner and when unable to fund improvements. With the concerns of selling the system to a private operator, the county worked with the Joliet Sanitary District to develop a plan. Thanks to federal, state and county funding, the support of this board, we have a partner with the city of Joliet to immediately begin repairs to the system. These improvements have been moving at a rapid pace with the first phase of construction announced just six months after the city took on the system. I want to thank Mayor Darcy and the city council and his team for their commitment to this project. Addressing challenges such as this is not an easy process, nor is it a fast one. These conversations started five years ago and it required thorough review of conditions, community-focused discussions, pursuit of funding, state legislation, and continued collaboration with our community leaders. I say that because I want to emphasize that fixing problems doesn't happen overnight and requires tenacity and strong planning. Long-term planning to provide quality infrastructure and services is a key component of our update to the county's land resource management plan, which aims to identify local needs and decide what the future of our communities will look like. We know we are a growing county and we need to balance the challenges. As we've celebrated our 190th anniversary this year, it has been an opportunity to reflect on how much Will County has changed over the years, continually adapting to the growth of the region. Will County has always been the center of movement and change. 190 years into our history, the same factors that made us economic powerhouse are still with us today, including access to international transportation network, a strong workforce, diverse business and employment sectors, and vibrant communities that people want to live and work. We lead the state in population growth in single-family home construction, with one in six homes being built in Illinois being built right here in Will County. We're seeing the impact of that growth firsthand with our land use department issuing over 2,500 building permits last year at a value of $314 million. As a county, we continue to lead the Midwest in job creation. We've created over 37,000 jobs here in Will County, and that is not by chance. We have the assets that businesses look for in a thriving economy and have put in the work to attract sustainable, future-focused job growth. We saw an example of this this past year when Hyundai TransLead announced their long-term commitment to Will County investing hundreds of millions of dollars into manufacturing facilities in Joliet and Shanahan. These investments will create nearly 2,500 local jobs. job creation is crucial for our future it means that residents have more options to be close to home it means that families move here to lay down roots it means a thriving business sector that everyone can benefit from that's why we're prioritizing long-term career success Our Workforce Services Division continues to support programs that connect Will County residents with opportunities. Last year, over 3,000 residents accessed services through the Workforce Center of Will County, including career counseling, workshops, or job fairs. Over 350 residents accessed career scholarships to grow their skills in high-demand fields. This included 143 teenagers and young adults learning skills to enter the workforce. Ensuring that the next generation can access opportunities here in Will County is critical. A graduate of any of our local colleges or high schools shouldn't have to leave the county to start their careers. That's why our workforce team has prioritized programs that offer skilled growth opportunities for young people, ensuring that we're connecting a local pathway to the future that fuels local economic development. This includes their growing apprenticeship program that promotes paid on-the-job training in high-demand fields, allowing local employers to have a sustained pipeline for talent and apprentices to gain lifelong skills and credentials. The success of apprenticeships is what led to an innovative partnership between Will County and Hire360, supported by state funding. The Will County Pre-Apprenticeship Program was built to help local residents gain access to the historic level of local construction jobs currently available by preparing them for apprenticeships in the trades. These programs are handing the keys to careers in the trades for those who have been locked out for too long. These are examples of how empowering growth makes a difference for the people of Will County. A growing economy creates more opportunities for residents, thriving local communities, stronger school districts, reduced tax rates, and more options for all. Again, we know this because our history is defined by this growth, and history tells us it's just as important to continue our investment into our transportation system. Will County is a national transportation hub. with roads, bridges, railways, waterways, airports, and a well-connected trail system. While we know the importance of transportation on the economy, we can't forget that Will County residents, including everyone in this room, a quality transportation network means it's easier to get from point A to point B. We're doing so thoughtfully and strategically, reducing congestion on our most high demand corridors. Under Director Jeff Ronaldson, our Division of Transportation continues to improve local roads and meet the needs of our fast-growing county. This year, we are on track to have the largest roadway employment plan in county history. with 145 million investment in access and safety in all corners of the county this includes the recent completion of widening project on bell road in homer glen which will improve safety for the over 8 000 drivers who use this stretch of road every day it also includes completion of three segments of the eight mile widening in reconstruction of literary road through new lenox moquina and frankfurt This project will strengthen access to our key east-west corridor that is heavily used to connect neighborhoods with schools, stores, and businesses that have become even more critical with the construction of I-80. Nearby, we are also nearing completion of the reconstruction and widening of 80th Avenue, which carries nearly 16,000 drivers daily. The new I-80 overpass will heavily reduce local congestion for residents. These are examples of how infrastructure investments can improve the quality of life for our residents, and our $797 million five-year transportation improvement program has many more of these investments on the horizon. This includes the long-awaited improvements to the Wilmington-Pietorn Road corridor, which will redefine access between southeast and southwest Will County. We also have two major overpass projects in the work, including awarding the Lorenzo Road Bridge project over the BNSF Railroad in Wilmington and the rail crossing overpass in New Lenox that will improve connection between local neighborhoods, Lincoln Way West High School and Silver Cross Hospital. The latter is the result of the largest transportation grant in Will County history, a significant example of how we're leveraging federal funding to maximize infrastructure investment. And I do want to add that we recently celebrated $850,000 federal investment towards the final leg of Weber Road and expansion in Romeoville, thanks to Congressman Bill Foster. On top of improving access, safety is at the heart of all local projects, creating corridors with modern designs that reduce crashes and promote safe driving behavior. We are continuing implementation of our safety action plan to find new ways to make our roads safer and reduce unnecessary crashes. But we know that safety is more than design. Safe roads absolutely require the enforcement of our traffic safety laws. This has been a top priority for our Sheriff's Office, who enforces traffic safety on over 250 miles of county roads in our very large, sprawling county. No small feat, but one that can make a real impact. Just ask Deputy Steve Potet, who was recently recognized by the Alliance Against Intoxicated Motorists as Deputy of the Year for making 122 DUI arrests last year. Joining the department in 2022 after his experience as an auxiliary officer, Steve's record of service is an example of the life-changing impact that coordinated enforcement can have on our roadways. We are seeing the same positive impact as a result of our increase in the department's deputy count last year, aimed at increasing overweight truck enforcement. This is a viable example of how votes taken in this room have made a difference towards a top local priority and have led to over 2,100 overweight truck citations last year and nearly 5.5 million in fines collected from negligent truck traffic that goes back into our communities. Those are real results from everyone who drives on Will County roads, and I want to thank Sheriff Mike Kelly and his deputies for recognizing this as a priority. As a county, we have continued our investments in a comprehensive vision for public safety. This has remained a top budget priority, and for good reason. The work we do as a county begins and ends with the primary goal of promoting safety at all levels. Whether it's ensuring our sheriff deputies have the resources they need to work safely and effectively, fully staffing our state's attorney's office, reducing recidivism with proactive programs, or ensuring that our emergency response efforts remain the best in Illinois, Will County has demonstrated its leadership in public safety and criminal justice. This leadership has made a difference. The sheriff's office is reporting that crime has continued to drop in unincorporated Will County for the fourth year in a row. These are real results achieved by the investments made by this county board to empower the proactive efforts of our public safety officers. Even outside of those investments, the sheriff office continues to offset costs. The office received $2 million in grant funding for body cameras, squad card cameras, and officer wellness and mental health programs over the last year.

All right, folks. All right. Mm-hmm. You made me nervous, Mark. He told me to get it done in 10 minutes.

Sorry, I'm trying to really talk fast. Got too much. I'm way over. I know. Got a lot of good things, folks. Yeah. It's also fair to say that our justice system looks very different than it did in previous decades. Our public safety and criminal justice system has embraced a more comprehensive review of public safety and the importance of reducing recidivism. This reputation of rehabilitation includes another grant, which results in 175,000 deflection efforts to assist re-entry. It also included Will County State's Attorney Jim Glasgow's Problem Solving Court, which this year celebrated its 1,000th graduate. This program, which includes the veterans, mental health, and drug courts, goes beyond holding people accountable, addressing the underlying challenges that can prevent crime, protect victims, and strengthen our communities. For a problem solving court graduate, recidivism rate drops to 21% after three years compared to 68% reported by the Illinois Department of Corrections. That means fewer repeat offenses and more people getting the opportunity to turn their lives around and better outcomes for everyone. Our public safety vision as a county has also included addressing critical issues that go beyond enforcement such as the opioid epidemic that has claimed far too many lives across the country. For years, Will County has been a leader in addressing this crisis and has made smart investments to save lives. I'm proud to say that thanks to partnership between law enforcement, health leaders, elected officials, nonprofits, and many, many more volunteers throughout this county, we have seen a 68% decline in opioid deaths over the last three years, far exceeding the state rate. Clearly, our proactive efforts and consistent funding for these efforts are making a difference, and that's worthy of celebration. Our public safety leadership makes a difference in communities across the county. Will County Emergency Management Agency continues their role as both the best emergency planning and response agency in the state and an emerging national leader. Their response and recovery efforts have been visible throughout the county, especially over the last few weeks. I will address them a little bit more later, but they have helped expand preparedness efforts to local schools, including through emergency, preparedness being integrated into education at the manhattan school district This leadership also included establishing a community wellness and resource center in the Village of Crete earlier this year after multiple tragic incidents connecting residents with mental health, wellness, and recovery resources. Their work isn't over yet. The EMA Volunteer Program, which has served for a critical force multiplier for a small department in a large county, will soon be expanding to include Will County Disaster Team, which will expand the number of volunteers available to respond to long-term emergencies. I want to thank Director Allison Anderson and the entire team for continuing to be so proactive. All of this took vision, but it also took responsible investments into our priorities. Everyone in this room can agree that public safety is top for county government, which has driven our budget for years. And as we look to the fiscal year 2027 budget, it remains top of our mind. I want to make one thing clear. Creating this JAF budget is a year long effort. We've held tons of meetings internally and with leadership from nine different elected county offices in all departments. Our office works under the following two fiscal priorities of my administration. One, maintaining county services, and two, operating with sound fiscal responsibility. We are a complex organization. We are 24-7 with services being provided across a very large footprint. While we do what we can with the resources available, all of our offices were confronted with significant cost drivers. County government is not immune to the same uncertainties everyone is facing, including rising costs, tariff uncertainty, fuel prices, everything from increases in personnel, commodities, postage, software expenses, lawsuit and tort expenses, and professional services costs have all increased. Thankfully, our countywide elected officials and county board have taken steps to address this. We continue to centralize operations and cut costs. These are multi-year efforts which have blunted the impact of economic conditions. Our operational efficiencies include our facilities department, RRE division, reaching 100% of our energy goal for the year, earning back over $120,000 in incentive rebate. The purchasing department, standardizing policies and reducing duplicative ordering services and costs. Records management, continuing to consolidate printer costs to save us nearly $20,000. Reducing our administrative adjudication budget by nearly $17,000 due to long planned efficiencies. A reduction in computer and cell phone expenses following a comprehensive audit. And human resources implementing a cost optimization initiative to reduce unnecessary claims. While some of these dollars may seem small scale, every bit is a reduction in cost to the taxpayers. But we're also thinking big. We've implemented large-scale reforms that have had significant budget savings. By rearranging our real estate portfolio, we've significantly reduced rental costs by $350,000 this year. Moreover, we identified favorable market conditions that led to a bond refinancing that has saved us $3.9 million in debt services. We've transformed operations at Sunny Hill Nursing Home in a multi-year process, doing the work to reduce agency expenses, increase our Medicare reimbursement by changing how we handle managed care. We have also worked to diversify our revenue sources and capitalize on outside revenue, including many of the grants I've already mentioned, alongside $3.8 million in grant funding that was used to offset the Copperfield project. These efforts help keep us strong and stable fiscal footing alongside our AA plus bond rating from Moody's. I want to thank finance director Rashawn Howard for working so aggressively with every county office to push for every cost saving and efficiency we could find. We started the budget with a $10 million deficit and Rashawn led the charge to trim down requests, incorporate savings and capitalize on years of planning. Because of everyone's efforts in the innovative work our departments, I am proposing a corporate budget of $311 million. The budget is balanced, sustains the progress we have made in county services, and continues our track record of fiscal stability. It also plans for the future, ensuring that we're not putting off hard work of governing into future generations. Today, I'm proud to report that our hard work and planning over the years have made a difference. We've capitalized on efficiencies to provide a balanced budget that maintains services in the face of economic headwinds and rising costs, all without raising property taxes. I repeat, we are using a budget that has a 0% levy. With no... With no levy increase, this includes providing $1 million for an annual contribution to the OPEB Trust Fund, dedicating $275,000 for IMRF accelerated pension payments, preparing for future liability by adding 5.5 million in the tort immunity fund and the property tax sales settlement fund, addressing our workman's compensation costs by including 1.5 million. With our county tax rate decreasing from 0.4815 to 0.4618%, we are capitalizing on our new growth to hold the line on our levy. Once again, the budget prioritizes public safety, the courts, and criminal justice, which makes up 66% of our operating budget, with 73% of that corporate fund being personnel expenses. We are left with very little room for discretionary spending. We are maximizing diverse revenue by increasing investments earned from the Treasurer's Office, which has increased from $11.3 to $12.2 million. This is an example of how fiscal stewardship and cash management makes a difference. And as a note here, the Treasurer Brophy has asked me to remind you that his office is also investing $134 million with local banks, which strongly supports our local economy. This budget keeps our cash reserves at 25% level. I strongly believe that using reserves for operations is not fiscally responsible. As a reminder, this percentage will fluctuate throughout the year, but this target ensures stability during the unexpected. We've made some tough decisions. I often felt like I was nickel and diming our elected officials and departments to ensure our everyday operations take precedent. This includes capital planning, which I need to emphasize is an unavoidable part of running a government. Our capital improvement plan has helped reduce emergency spending by scheduling out maintenance and replacement costs. The budget includes 4.5 million in capital projects, projects such as building automation at River Valley Detention Center, ensuring youth and staff are safe and secure, a modernization of real estate management systems, a continuation of our stormwater management collaboration with local government, repairs to ensure that our first responders radio, repairs to our first responder radio systems, and a $2.9 million investment in equipment for our sheriff's deputies in operations of the adult detention facility. We are using cannabis sales tax fund and opioid settlement funds to maintain existing programs. This allows us to continue work that has proven track record of success, such as our eviction mediation program that has kept families in their homes, food assistance during a period of rising costs, programs that help protect children through the court-appointed special advocate and children's advocacy center, and the workforce service reentry program, which has helped over 500 residents gain workplace readiness skills since its inception. I'm also proposing that we set aside $500,000 in cannabis funds for county board community impact grant that can address core needs that everyone in this room cares about. Once again, our opioid settlement funds will continue to fund our operational needs at as well as well for Dr Burke substance use initiative substance use initiatives, which have a record of success in prevention. And we have also included two hundred fifty thousand dollars for our life changing problem solving courts. In this proposed budget, we are maintaining services, keeping the county on a strong fiscal footing, and balancing the needs of 10 elected county officials in the interest of this county board. It wasn't easy, but we made tough decisions to get us here, all without raising property taxes. A lot of work went into this and I'm proud to present a stable budget that still prepares us for the future while aligning with our goals, maintaining services and fiscal stability. This is a tight budget. As you review, please remember these are still several months left in this fiscal year. The year to date listed that you will see in your draft budget books is a snapshot of where we stand at the end of July. Bills will continue to come in until December 1st and will get paid until February. We take that into account when we create this budget. If any member in this room has suggestions about ways to do things better, we are here to work with you. We encourage you to talk to departments and other elected officials to better understand what each line item means. In closing, I want to remind everyone of the unpredictability of government work. We have expectations, but government needs to be flexible and adapt. As we plan for next year, it is important to reflect on what happened this past month and how the county was tested by multiple severe weather events. About a month ago, Will County experienced significant storms causing severe property damage and power outages countywide, especially in northern and eastern Will County. in our large county events like these cross local borders and challenge us to work together across the board community leaders first responders local non-for-profits utilities and neighborhood organizations stepped up in a unified response coming together in time of adversity is one of will county's greatest assets for our emergency management agency it meant non-stop work of coordinating response and recovery efforts building on their expertise and credibility Then, two weeks later, we were tested again. Last Tuesday, another wave of storms hit. A path of winds reaching more than 100 miles per hour tore through the county with EF1 tornadoes confirmed through Crete, Monee, Tinley Park, and Wilmington. The same residents who were rebuilding a few weeks before faced even more damage, and over 95,000 households experienced power outages. For the EMA team, their volunteers, sheriff's office, DOT, our local municipal partners, and first responders, it was instinct. They kept on going. They demonstrated a calmness and professionalism that kept temperatures down during a highly stressful time and promoted collaboration between local leaders at all levels. Two disaster declarations later, we are on a path to recovery. I highlight this for the obvious reason. I am extremely grateful for the work, but it also should remind us of the unexpected cost of crisis management. As hard as we try, we cannot foresee every variable that may come up during the year. We also have over 700,000 residents in our county with varying expectations for county government. Clearly, this is not an easy task for any of us. but we can manage the work of governing with civility, collaboration, and responsible deliberation. I look forward to working with this county board to address our challenges and keeping Will County strong. Thank you.

All right.

It really is a congratulations to all of us. We can only do in our departments what we get permission from the county board to do. So we do appreciate the commitment that you provide our departments and our elected officials.

So with that we now we got to go into business. I know we are moving on to, uh, land use and development.

Chair pretzel Europe, sir.

Thank you, Madam Executive. First up on today's Land Use and Development Committee agenda is REF 26-001, a request for refund for zoning case ZC25-128. It was a special use permit for an outdoor storage with four conditions in Lockport Township at the vacant property on New Avenue in Lockport. Land Use and Development voted this down two to four, and I so move.

Second actually.

Motion by Pretzel, second by Oxley. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Richmond?

No.

Williams? Dean Schlattman? Ocala?

No. Ocala? I thought you said my name. I'm excited about this.

No, no. Butler new quest. Actually, no Brooks Winfrey. Logan Freeman. Mitchell. Ortiz, Berkowitz, Hickey, Costa, Trainier, Van Dyne?

No. 21 in the negative, the motion fails.

Thank you. Next on the agenda, ORD 26-245, a proposed text amendments from the Clean and Reliable Grid Affordability Act. battery energy storage facilities, commercial solar energy facilities, commercial wind energy facilities, common provisions, special use permits, use table definitions, public and civic use category, land use fee schedule, and building fee schedule. Both PCC and land use and development were unanimous in support of this and I so move.

Motion by Pretzel. Second. Seconded by Oxley. Any discussion?

Member Berkowitz. Thank you. So I have a question for staff. It indicates that this may be approved as a special use permit in the A1 zoning district. So I'd like to ask staff, is that in there because that is required and specified by state statute? Do we have to put in there that this may be applied to a one zoning?

I'm going to come in it for you with that far.

Yeah.

States to get you to monitor. Okay.

Good morning. Marguerite Kenny with the Will County Land Use. It is my understanding the state statute under the CRGA requires special use for A1 and then the three industrial districts.

So it does specify that. Correct. Okay, thank you. And then I do have another question. So my concern also is regarding the disposal of equipment on site during operations, not just at the commissioning and also the recycling of. The batteries or any of this waste, because we know our landfills are filling up. Um, if we have a storm and the panels are damaged, or the site, uh, is damaged, it will create waste. So my question is, is how are we addressing that in this ordinance?

So, yeah, David DuBois direct lanes department, the zoning orders does not specifically address reclamation waste products.

Um, and why wouldn't we.

I'm assuming that we would be applying state law and local county law for like, through, you know, through.

So, I do know that the state of Illinois has. They have stated that they don't have a recycling process set up, although they call it green energy. They don't have an existing structure to recycle these materials. Um, my question is, is why are we not allowed as a county to put. Our requirements in our ordinance to tell them we don't want this and we don't want this garbage to wind up in our land use because our land use is filling up. We would like to see that every effort is made that these batteries are recycled even if it winds up it's in another state. I would like to see that in this ordinance.

So I guess that's something that could be reviewed further. I would recommend, though, that this particular set of changes go forward to be in compliance with state law. And that's something that the board desires to consider going forward. That's something we can look at. Also, if there is a special use permit that's required for a particular use, that you may also consider a condition on the special use if it's permitted by state law and if there's a rational nexus for it.

Okay, so just to be clear that we can move this forward and then we can also bring those additions to the ordinance.

Forward if it's the direction of the board, that's something they want to consider in the future. Yes, but I would recommend the current changes go forward.

I agree with that and I do want to make a request at this time that the board consider this and support my request to have that brought forward and let's further strengthen this ordinance. We want to make sure we are protecting our resources here in the county. and the communities that are surrounding these industrial uses. I just had one other question, and I was wondering why it indicates a decommissioning period, an 18 month period. And that is item 7. That concerns me. I'm thinking of the community surrounding that project to have to look at that for 18 months. You look at the how quick they can get these projects constructed. I would think that they could. Decommission these projects in a, in a much quicker fashion fashion than 18 months. So my. My recommendation is that we decrease that period because I'm thinking about who is left who's in that area. That is directly impacted by the site. I mean, so I'd like to make an amendment that we reduce that period of time.

He's he's taking a look to see if that's state law or not. So, yeah, thank you may not be able. Well, can we continue? We'll let him look and we'll continue certain back to see if that 18 month is. Is state law member Butler?

So, when we're talking about energy storage facilities, are we also kind of retroactive every solar facility that has been up. You know, approved or is going in can can have a battery storage facility. Is that what we're saying? I mean, the, I don't know where you would store them if not there.

Well, the states, I mean, I don't know if the state's trying to say anything to say on that, but it really the, the requirements of this particular, the changes will be in effect or be hence going forward from the effective day of the ordinance. Not retroactive.

Yeah, okay. Sorry. So, well, I can repeat it. Oh, okay.

So, looking at the state law, it appears it sets 18 months as the floor. So it does not allow you to go less than 18 months. It says it must be a. Plan to decommission it within 18 months of the projects life.

So, that's the plan that's it doesn't need it doesn't require it be the decommissioning be completed within 18 months.

It talks about a plan that plan should be, you know, the experts are going to say whether that could be, but it says they should have a plan within 18 months or to have a decommissioned within 18 months.

I think the plan to decommission should be submitted during the application process process. It is.

Yeah, that's part of the application process.

Okay. And then, but, but again, the way I'm reading it. Is it stating how much time do they have to actually decommission the project? Go in and clean it up, or if they're closing it, remove it.

They should be decommissioned within 18 months. The way it's written, I think what they're saying is that, say it's a small facility, and they can decommission it in six months. Maybe that's what they want to submit. But they have up to 18 months to decommission it.

Okay, thank you. Mr Butler would you like to repeat your question?

Yeah, so when they're when they're talking about these energy storage facilities, are they talking about every solar facility that has been approved in will county or they can all have battery storage there retroactive. Is it retroactive? Is it every single 1 that has been approved and will be approved? That's what they're talking about.

No, I wouldn't say it retroactively gives them the right to just get battery storage. That's part of the application process. Um, and the ones that have applied that don't have battery storage have not applied for that portion of the statute.

So, but all of the ones that have put solar facilities in can apply. Yeah, that was the case before the, I'm just, I guess I'm just making it known that every single solar facility in the county has the ability to do this. So that's what we're talking about. Just making it clear for everyone.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Member Richmond.

Thank you very much.

I appreciate the opportunity and the questions Julie and Dan. I know we've experienced some severe weather lately. It's caused a lot of frustration for a lot of residents. But if I go back to the solar facilities down in Kankakee, that tornado was on March 10th. That's five months ago. that still isn't even cleaned up. So I would like to see us do whatever we can to put some constraints on how quickly they need to take action and how quickly this needs to be cleaned up with these things moving forward. So, Kevin, you know, I want you to take a look at that and figure out how we can actually move that forward with some of these things. Now, I know some of we won't be able to go retroactive, but, you know, let's get this initiated right away. You know, something like you've got to have people out there within 5 days cleaning up and it's got to be fully cleaned up in 20, 30 days or something like that.

Sure. And any of these suggestions happily submitted to us. We'll research and make sure that we can get them done and then we'll draft language.

Okay. Thank you.

Butler hold on there you go.

Okay, thank you. I understand that a lot of this is just technicality and just. You know, I'm assuming that all these things that are crossed off are already part of the code or. I guess I just don't, I would like to see it more complete and maybe we can't ask for this, but if I were to allow something like this, I would want there were to be rules on how those batteries are used, that those batteries are actually purchasing power off the grid, say, from 12 to 4 in the morning when energy is cheap, and then they could sell it back at peak hours. What I wouldn't want is to see them charging their batteries during prime hours for collecting sun and then selling it back during peak hours. Which would be between 5 and 9. I mean, if we're, if we're going to practice a green initiative, it should work for everybody. Right? So, I don't know. Are those stipulations that we could put in our ordinance so that we're not just. Paying out all kinds of money for free energy.

Okay. I'd be highly suspect that specifically because the state regulates a lot of the. The commercial energy facilities and has rates set and things like that about how power is generated. But again, if there's something more you'd like to see to have this more robust, we bring these to committee again. I know we've had a lot of committee meetings on these specific amendments. So, if there's specific things you want us to research, we'll put it together. Phil is still doing ordinance review stuff. So we'll be happy to do it.

Yeah, I would love to have that suggestion researched and added to it because that would actually, I know that you could, they have more than solar companies out now. They have battery companies. And literally, you could put a battery in your house, they'll lower your electric bill by 25%, and they'll buy electricity during the night to charge their battery, and during peak hours, they sell it, and they make a profit. Okay? I'm just saying, if we're giving up all of our farmland, you know, Do we want them, you know, not only does it not lower our price, but it's not going to help us during our peak hours. Because if the electricity is being fed into the grid, while, you know, during the day, it could actually create a surplus and drive the cost of electricity down.

Just saying. Sure, send anything you'd like us to look over and we will make sure we research it and get back to you on it. Okay.

All right, I don't see any more questions. We have a motion and a 2nd, madam clerk, please call the roll.

Richmond Williams. Yes. Okay.

Yeah. Yes.

Butler new quest. Yes, actually yes, Brooks. Yeah. Well, look. Logan Freeman. Mitchell yes. Berkowitz. Costa. Being done yes.

With 20 in the affirmative, the motion carries.

All right, thank you. The next land use and development committee meeting is scheduled for September 3rd.

Thank you chair new quest finance. Good afternoon. Everybody. We do have a consent agenda before I proceed. Is there any county board member who wants to remove an item from the consent agenda?

Member gala just item a, I don't remember I was in the meeting, but I can't call it. So I'd like to have a refresher. Thank you. All right.

Okay, okay, should I go ahead with the consent agenda 1st and then? Okay. So, uh, number 1 consent agenda, and that would include be, um, resolution 26 dash 247 appropriating grant funds in the sheriff's budget. See resolution 26 dash 248 appropriating opioid grant funds in the sheriff's budget. D resolution 26 dash 249 appropriating sit go grant funds in the sheriff's budget and E resolution 26 dash 250 appropriating stipend payments for the elected officials. And I so move motion by new quest. Seconded by Winfrey. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Okay, back to number A, resolution 26-246, establishing a new special fund and appropriating grant funds in the sheriff's budget. And I believe that was for a camera grant.

Can you, let's get a motion out first. Oh, I'm sorry. I so move. Motion by Newquist. Seconded by Hickey. Now discussion. All right. Do you recall what it is?

Yeah, it's a camera. It's a camera. But I believe it's body cameras. Um, oh, and the storage that goes along with it. Yeah, there's an attachment in your agenda that explains a little bit more about it. Any questions? Yep. Member Guala?

So the special fund was created because these grants, we don't have another area to put these particular dollars and they have to be specific to this is that that why we have, we have, uh, we'll have Sean. I just didn't remember. Sorry.

Right. It looks like, um, right. We transferred the money out of. Rashaun would probably be better.

Thank you. Hello everyone.

So the purpose of creating the new fund in attached in the agreement, it says these funds have to be in an interest bearing account. So that's why we have to create the new fund. And, um, those funds are being transferred into that new fund once approved.

All right. Thank you. Sorry. I just forgot that.

All right. So we have a motion and a second. Any more discussion? I remember our last roll call. So, ma'am clerk, please call the roll Richmond.

Yeah, Williams. Yeah. Okay. Yes. Yes. Butler new quest. Yes. Actually Brooks. Yeah. Yes. Yes. Logan Freeman. Mitchell or tease. Berkowitz, Hickey, Costa, Trainier, Van Dyke.

22 in the affirmative, the motion carries.

Thank you. Number two, we just have the usual monthly finance report to be placed on file, and that's all I have, except that our next finance committee meeting is scheduled for September 1st. Thank you. Thank you.

Moving on to public works and transportation, Chair Trainier.

Good morning, everyone. Glad to hear that our county is in good shape despite our budgetary differences. We do have a consent agenda items A through I. Is there any member that would like something removed? Okay, hearing none, we'll start with letter A. A resolution conforming award of contract to deconstruction led on July 15th, resurfacing various roadways in New Lenox Township County Board Districts 4 and 5. Letter B, resolution authorizing approval of agreement for purchase of wetland and stream banking credits with V3 wetland restoration for county highway improvement projects in County Board Districts 1 through 11. Letter C resolution authorizing an intergovernmental agreement between the village of Tinley park and the county of will for maintenance and energy traffic signals at the intersection of 191st street and Western. Entrance to Brookside marketplace county board district for. Letter D, authorizing an agreement between the County of Will and Northern Illinois Gas Company, a.k.a. NICOR Gas Company, for reimbursement for relocating facilities for the improvements of Gallagher Road from Spencer Road to Farrow Drive in County Board Districts 2 and 5. Letter E, authorizing approval of a Supplemental Professional Services Agreement for Design Engineering Services Phase 2 with V3 Companies for Lairway Road and the U.S. 45 intersection. County board districts 2 and 3 letter F resolution authorizing approval of supplemental professional services agreement for design engineering services phase 1 and 2 with US services for Webber road from airport road to 134 5th street in county board district 9. Letter G, a resolution authorizing approval of professional services agreement for right-of-way acquisition services appraisals with triple D valuation services incorporated for several parcels of property for Gallagher Road from Farrow Drive to Francis Road for County Board Districts 2 and 5. Letter H, resolution authorizing approval of professional services agreement for right-of-way acquisition services to review the appraisals with Hampton, Lenzini, and Renwick Inc. for several parcels of property for Galga Road from Farrow Drive to Francis Road in County Board Districts 2 and 5. Letter I, resolution authorizing approval of professional services agreement for right-of-way acquisition service negotiations with Santa Cruz Land Acquisitions for several parcels of property for Galga Road to Farrow Drive to Francis Road in County Board Districts 2 and 5. And I so move.

Motion by Trenear. Seconded by Hickey. All in favor? Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you.

And the next items are all dealing with the license plate reader cameras. And I would like to make a statement before we go through them. And I just want to say I really appreciate the working relationship we've had with the Will County Chiefs throughout all of our municipalities. We are letting everyone know that we will be creating an ordinance here in our county that will cover any agency that wishes to use these cameras in the future, including our own Sheriff's Department, to ensure that this technology is used responsibly. We have wrestled with this a lot. We have put some guardrails into most of these IGAs that are in front of you today, with the exception of maybe one. But we do think that there's room for more guardrails. Don't know how these votes are gonna go, but the ordinance will be coming regardless because we need to cover this as a community. I agreed with the one commenter who spoke earlier, said maybe we should have something on the ballot that would let the residents of Will County directly speak to us about their concerns. Yesterday, you should have received an amendment for the IGAs, and that amendment has since then had a proposed amendment. So that's what's being passed out to you now. But basically what you're seeing.

I'm going to stop right there so we can get one of these motions on the floor, because then you're going to have to say if they're from.

Yeah, I'm going to have to do it all over again. So number two, Resolution 26-260, authorizing an intergovernmental agreement between the village of Mokena and the County of Will for the placement of license plate reading cameras located on county highways in the County of Will.

And I so move motion by trainer, seconded by Van Dyne. Okay.

So this is the amendment that's being proposed in this. This has had an extra line and added to it at the bottom. So, for those of you that checked your email yesterday, or looked at the document on your desk this morning, this has 1 additional sentence at the end. Furthermore, municipality will agree that from time to time county may amend their ordinances with regard to flock cameras. Municipality agrees to abide by those amendments and any change to the county ordinance are hereby incorporated by reference to this. Those amendments will become effective 90 calendar days from the date of the county executive signature. Notice of the change will be delivered by method described in this and municipality may withdraw from the within 30 days written notice from the county executive signature before any ordinances related to the are updated. The county will notify all municipalities that have intergovernmental agreements with will county to allow police departments the opportunity to provide input into the drafting of the ordinance. Um, we already allow them to come and talk to us that would not change, but this just codifies it puts it in writing. Um. Gives the municipality the opportunity to drop out of the if they don't agree with the new ordinance gives them certain time frames to make that decision. So that is the proposed amendment and I'll make that motion.

Motion by Trenere, seconded by O'Biella. Any discussion on the amendment? I guess it could all kind of come together, too. So if you press your button, I'm assuming we want to talk. I guess it all comes together. So it's on the amendment. I guess your opinions on just in general, if you have just opinions on the whole topic, you can wait till the larger discussion, but this is just on the amendment, please. Member Berkowitz on the amendment.

We are discussing an amendment.

We do it all the time.

That is not even on the agenda. We have not had a vote on the floor to bring an amendment forward. This was put in front of me three minutes ago.

I'm just going to say, we do amendments all the time on this floor. And so if you don't want to vote, this is the beauty of it. You could say just no because of that reason alone. Was there a vote to bring this amendment? You don't vote. Excuse me, I'm asking the state attorney. You don't need the state attorney. This has been on the county board here for so long. Anybody can bring up an amendment. Anybody can bring up the amendment.

You're saying a lot of things that aren't necessary. Let's keep this focused. Member Tremier opened it up.

Any county board member can make an amendment to something that is presented. Any county board member. You've done it. You just said you wanted to make an amendment to something. Any county board member can make an amendment. Sometimes county board members ask for it in writing. Sometimes they don't, I think member turner put it in writing so you would have it. But if your question is, can we do an amendment? Yes, just like you can do an amendment just like any member here can do an amendment on something you're voting for. And if you feel better, we will let the state's attorney.

Confirm that your answer so a lot of pressure.

So, I do apologize. We were talking about the text of the amendment. I believe there was a motion for an amendment. So, yes, you have an amendment and the amendment is on which item item number 2. you're currently on item 2. you'll be making this amendment to every 1 of the 2 through 8.

I believe exactly. So typically we have an amendment on the agenda item. No.

No, you don't. And your ordinances, even for land use cases, allow you to amend conditions on properties. They allow you to amend the ordinances as you go through. That's the point of the discussion is the general topic is on the board agenda. But things come up. You hear public comment. You hear things in between the meetings outside land use cases that make you want to change something. And you make amendments. It's not a problem with the Open Meetings Act.

Well, I do find it ironic that I wanted to make an amendment to the previous item for the solar facilities, and we were encouraged to wait on that. There is not a whole lot of consistency here, but I guess we will focus on moving this forward, and I do have a comment regarding this.

I'm going to say it again. When you make an amendment, you have to make a motion, too, as well. So you can't just, and again, a lot of times you say, I'd like us to do this, I'd like us to have this conversation. Some of those are as, you know, you ask a question, and as the current law, this ordinance, now we can't do it. But they invite you to go back to talk about it in committee and change your ordinances too. But you have to make the motion for the amendment.

That is the way that the county board will vote on so I have a question for the author of this Amendment and I would like to understand why it says here Municipality may withdraw from the IGA within 30 days written notice From the county executive signature, so I would like an explanation who What the thought is behind that, how the 30 days was determined and basically, why is that even in there? Because I, I do not feel that that's necessary. Are you the author of this?

Okay. Okay. All right. All right. We're going to give to member.

In executive committee last week on Thursday, this was discussed. This was brought up and I told everyone that was here in the executive committee that we would be asking the state's attorney to write the language that would allow for a municipality to and the IGA should they choose not to follow our new ordinance. We thought it only fair and transparent to let them know we are going to do a new ordinance or an ordinance because we don't have one currently. And Member Ogalla actually suggested that 30 days was not enough notice and that we should give them 90 days to make a decision. And then they have 30 days to then withdraw if that's what they choose to do. So we worked on that bipartisanly. And this last sentence was just added this morning, um, which I kind of considered a little redundant because we do work with them, but now we put it in writing that we will notify them and work with them on the ordinance.

So, um, my concern with that is. Base basically, uh, I don't think there should be a restriction. I think if the municipality, um, you know. 361 days later they have, uh, for reasons within their municipality, they need to withdraw. They should have the ability to withdraw. We should not be putting this restriction over their, their hands at the end of the day. They're trying to do their job. There are circumstances. That they are experiencing. that has no relevance to county government. So if they need to withdraw, I don't think any restriction should be in this amendment and I will not support any restriction in terms of withdrawing from our future ordinances. So I would like to make a motion that that be removed. So we'll vote on the amendment and if it passes, I will amend it.

So I just want to point out real quick, if the amendment were to be removed, just as we're going through this, it puts a default three-year agreement on this.

Okay.

All right. We're going through here on the minute. We have Member Butler, then Hickey.

Okay, well, I had a few questions. I think, I'm not sure about that answer you just gave. Is there a time limit on this IGA? Did you say three years? That's already built into it. Okay, but I... Well, I can't make a motion to completely change the arm. You can't hold on.

Hold on. No, no, no, no, no, no. You're right. You're right. We're just where we're still on the amendment. He responded to her, her, her motion. So we're still talking about this sheet right here.

No. No, she she did not make a proper amendment.

You can't make an amendment. I didn't say anything with regard to emotion. I was just clarifying what the effect of removing this language is, which is just a default 3 year term this.

Did she say, no. Yeah, yeah. Okay. So. You have completely confused. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Yeah. Well, how about. What was your motion? I understand. What was your motion? And I think I think your emotion was to remove this. Hold on hold on let's listen to what her motion was, but.

Yeah, what I'm what I'm what I said was that I wanted any restriction removed right now. It says 30 days written notice. What I would like is no restriction. If they find out in two years they need to cancel, they have the ability to withdraw from the IGA. That was my request. Now, I was told that, no, we have to vote on this first, and then I can bring it forward. So that's where we're at today. Yes. Right now we are voting on what is in front. So if you vote yes for this, you are voting to place a risk. 30 day written notice on these municipalities. That you're putting a restriction on them to be able to cancel this. Yes agreement. Yes, they have it all in front of them. And what I stated was, I feel that's unreasonable and it should not exist. So, thank you.

Member Butler, are you done with your I'm not okay. Okay questions or statement on the amendment. So you have questions and statement.

All right. Okay. My question is that the is only for 3 years. Okay, so there's a term on it. So, if we have the option to make a new in 3 years. So, if we're not comfortable with it at that time, we can do that. I, you know, I think it's going to cause a lot of trouble trying to, you know, it almost sounds like maybe being a little fickle that whenever we want to make a new ordinance, it's going to ripple through the county. And we got to make all these changes with all these different municipalities. If people are concerned. You know that, you know, they want it to be more stringent or not, you know, maybe you make it a year or 2 years, but I don't I don't think, um, you know, this process here, it doesn't really make sense because if you're going to make an ordinance, it's going to change. You know, I'm sure the police department, if it's going to be not beneficial to them is just going to quit the next day anyway, but I can't see that how they would do that because any access to help them fight crime they're going to take. So, I just think we should stick to the and if anything. I feel 3 years is a good time, but if people want to make a change in 1 or 2 years, that's good. But. you know making it anytime we want to change an ordinance that it has to ripple through the the county and all the law enforcement has to change the way they do stuff or you know your methods it just doesn't seem very productive to me and a member hickey then logan

Thank you madam executive. First of all, I did offer up in committee an amendment to change the to 1 year sunset and we had some technical problems at that moment. And so we had a little bit of a recess and in talking to some, some of the law enforcement folks that were there, they were not interested in that. And as a matter of fact, the former police chief Arnold contacted me and said, where do we stand on this? And I'm like, I, it was rescinded. So I took that to mean that they would prefer doing this in one fell swoop. So one three year agreement with the County. Um, but without this ordinance art without this amendment, I, I'm not sure that I can, can vote for these. Um, I'm really concerned because, we are looking at we are looking at this i mean we need to look at this as not an all or nothing kind of thing i do think that these are valuable tools i've said this over and over again i do think that there are some problems with the way that we don't have a whole window into to what flock is telling us is being flagged as a problem so for those reasons to make sure that we have some time and some oversight i really think that we need to put this amendment in place. And if that's a deal breaker, I don't, I don't know what to do. But I do have one quick question for the state's attorney. And that is, and maybe this is being a stickler. But before any ordinances related to LPRs are updated, the county will notify all the municipalities that have ideas with Will County. We mean just the ideas for a LPR is correct.

Yeah, that is the intent.

Okay. All right. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.

Number Logan.

All right. So my question might be for the attorney. So in reading this, are we requiring them to agree to future rules that don't exist now?

that was the intent of what was, what we were asked to draft is essentially you guys are coming up with policies. They're asking, um, that those policies be incorporated by reference into the IGA. And if that's the point of the opt out is if you look at it, say we can't abide by this, whatever that may be.

I can't imagine that they would sign something and knowing the rules are going to change.

That's a potential. Um,

certainly it's something their their attorneys might um that was the point of the op out for decision was to make it more palatable okay um and one other thing can and i know this might not be in this but like could we require breakaway posts like in an iga because right now we don't have breakaway posts that would be something we would do right yeah i don't know what this would do like from now on everything has to be a breakaway post

I don't see any, I'm not aware of any legal prohibition on doing that, so something we can make them agree to.

I think we're the only county in the area that doesn't require that. Okay.

Yeah, if that's technically feasible, I think we can get them to agree.

I just, I can't agree to something where future rules can change, so thanks.

Member O'Gallon, Richmond.

Thank you. So last the executive committee, Jackie did come up with 30 days and I said that wasn't long enough. She agreed to 90. I think that was good. I did add the last sentence because I spoke with various police chiefs and they wanted to be able to make sure that they were involved, even though, like Jackie said, we do involve them. This just clarifies that we will get their involvement, notify them of any ordinance changes. Um, So, to me, it makes sense to if we're going to do it, that's what we're going to do. We can create an ordinance is what we can do here at the county. This allows them to be involved in the ordinance conversation. So we can understand maybe something we put something in want to put something in and we don't understand what they do. They have the conversation. Chances are. will agree, state's attorney will look it up and say yes or no, that kind of thing. And if they don't like the ordinance, because we don't have one now, then they could just pull out altogether and they could just take their flock cameras off the posts. I do think that what Vin said is good with breakaway posts. I mentioned that the other evening at our caucus meeting. And so I'm not really sure where we do that in the ordinance or in the IGA, but thank you.

Member Richmond.

Thank you. So the IGAs are in place. This document here is nothing more than for future changes that are made by our ordinance to give the municipalities the opportunity for input as well as a decision-making process. And it puts a timeline on that decision-making process. If a municipality in December of this year, just all of a sudden says, we don't want them anymore. They can just break their IGA. There's no contractual agreement. There's no timeline. They can do it whenever they want on any particular day they want. So I think let's, I don't want to confuse the two. This is for future. This puts a timeline on the future, but the IGA right now, if it's in place for three years, It can be broken by the municipality at any point in time, if I'm not mistaken, right? Kevin.

Generally, generally, there's no termination provisions in this. What I would say is, I don't think the county would ever object to this doesn't enter to our benefit. So we say, hey, we want out of this. Okay. County agrees. You can always do that. That's the principle of contract law. If the parties agree to terminate it, it's fine.

Exactly. So I think this is this is just to protect. and lay some guidelines for future ordinance potential ordinance changes that could impact the municipality in the way that they're currently doing business and give them the ability to have some input as well as make a decision on what they want to do moving forward fair enough okay i got a little bit of a nod so i'm thinking i'm okay

Oh, yeah, I thought I answered the question. Don't worry, you went like this, Kevin, so I took it. I never give a nonverbal answer, but yes, I agree with what you've said.

So if you're voting on this, it's not like you're forcing them to keep with them forever or anything like that. This is just the parameters, that's all. So thank you.

Thank you. We have Member Newquist and Revis.

I think you answered most of my question. My, my only other little piece remaining was, I mean, in theory, let's say that 2 years from now to speak to member Berkowitz is concerned. They decide they don't want to use flock technology anymore. I mean, all they have to do is terminate their agreement with flock and or they could just remove the flat cameras from our right away, whether we approve or not that effectively terminates the agreement with us.

Correct? That's totally fair. If they're not using flock the polls there, we probably ask them to move it. But, um, yeah.

Yeah, I mean, the key point is, they would no longer if they terminate this agreement with us, whether because they're not using it, whether because, you know, whatever reason they have to remove the cameras from our right away.

Correct, and again, I don't speak for you as the policymakers, but I would think if somebody said, we want out of this IGA, the county would say, fine, it's not a benefit to us.

But just get rid of your cameras.

Yeah, get rid of your cameras, we'll break the whole thing.

Okay, thank you.

All right, we've seen, oh, I'm sorry. Oh, there we go.

Well, now we have three more lights at just one, yeah.

Well, I had a quote member go ahead and remember, I would like to call the question. Remember, uh, Revis called the question seconded by, uh, member Ortiz, madam clerk, please call the role.

Okay.

All right, Richmond question. Oh, Richmond. Yep williams inch latman gala pretzel butler. New quest. Yeah actually. Brooks win free. Logan. Revis Mitchell Ortiz. No. Costa. Being done.

Okay, 20 in the affirmative. We will now call the question. This is on item number two with the amendment that is sitting before you. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Richmond. Yes. Williams. Dean Schlattman. No. Ocala. No. Pretzel.

No.

Butler, Newquist, Balich, Axley, Brooks, Winfrey, Bullock, Logan, Freeman, Revis, Mitchell, Ortiz, Herkowitz, Hickey,

Costa, Trainier, Van Dyne. 11, yes?

Yes.

Oh, 11, 11.

Yes. So with 12 in the affirmative, the motion carries. It was a tie, yes. I only vote in tie, sorry. Yeah, so I'm sorry. We have to say when there's a tie.

11-11, it was a... We have to vote on...

Uh, for resolution number 2, authorizing the between the village of and the county of will as amended and the.

As amended, I make that. Okay. Motion by seconded by Van Dine.

And I would just say, I want to speak to the motion. I would just like to say, thank you that you voted.

Yes. Hold on. We'll get, we got to get down the floor motion by Turner seconded by Van Dyne. Oh, yeah, we can. Now we can. Yes. Go ahead. I'm sorry.

My concern was, and this was brought up in executive committee was that flock can change the rules every day of the week. And the technology can change. We heard testimony today here by the public. I personally remember the figures from many, many years that technology changes, doubles every 18 months. I'm sure now technology probably doubles every three months. And if the technology changes, those departments, because we've given them the IGA, can move along with the updated technology. Well, if they can make a change because the technology changed, then we should be able to make a change. And the ordinance would allow us to do that. Plus, our own sheriff's department does not have an agreement with us. We don't know how they're using this technology. We have no idea what they're doing at all. Um, that they're following any of the guidelines that are in the examples in here in the, so, um, I'm if we're going to move forward with these cameras, I think we need guard rails and I think we need a way to add guard rails if necessary.

Thank you member Richmond.

And the number 2 correct. So. I know a lot of people were here. A lot of people were against him in that. I don't believe as many people are here right now. I just want to make one thing clear, and I believe that was the chief of Manhattan that made it clear is the fact that this isn't the county putting up these cameras. These are municipalities that have made a decision at some point in time prior to today that they wanted cameras for their municipalities and their communities. They have them throughout their communities. They have them on their own poles, on their own easements, on... This is purely an inter-government agreement for them to use a Will County right-of-way slash poll. And it's not, it's their cameras. It's not a Will County camera or anything like that. And it's controlled by their police department and their management team. From there then, all we did is we are asking them, they came in and they were willing to spend a great deal of time and enhance their ordinances. I know the Mayor Mokena was one of the leads. I don't want to discount anybody else who was heavily involved, but everybody came in and upped their game. So just for anybody who's still here or has concerns about it, this isn't Will County, this is just us giving access to a right-of-way that we had already given before. So it's not like as a county we're voting for flock cameras for all these different municipalities. So thank you very much for your time.

Member Berkowitz.

Thank you. So with the passage of this amendment, I guess, Kevin, I'd like to know exactly what we are voting on. How does the language of what we're voting on change?

So now the.

21 paragraphs of the agreement are 22 with the amendment that you passed. Again, as we pointed out, this is for you to give some input and notice to the municipalities. Member Richmond is 100% correct. This is not a vote on Will County flock. This is an IGA to use our right of ways. So that's the overall part of this agreement. It's not... They've made the decisions that they want to use Flock and they've said, hey, we want to use these locations. It's in your right of way. Can we get access to your right of way?

Okay. Thank you. Member Balich.

So I have a problem with any of them cameras. I used to vote. Yeah, because the cities, they want to have them. God bless them. But then I start reading more about black cameras and LCRs. And I find out that now they're putting them in streetlights. So. It's going to go in a street light. It could go down any block that they want once they start getting all the street lights. They don't even need poles now. They're just going to hook them up. And different cities are doing that. They're not doing it around here, but what's to stop them from doing that? So they can follow you from the second you walk out of your door eventually and go exactly where you're going all the time. And then when they know that, That's like surveillance of you, just like one of the people that we're talking were saying. So the government's going to know what time you walked out of your house, what time you came back to your house, where you went. So if you went to the doctor, they know your doctor. It's just against our rights. Our liberties are more important than this surveillance. So we have a constitutional right with the Fourth Amendment to say no. And that's why I'm a no. It's breaking the Fourth Amendment.

Thank you. Member Mitchell. And then Pretzel.

I'm having a hard time with this as well. I am pro-life. unapologetically for life. And I am disturbed at the idea that if you go across the border to get an abortion, that they can follow you on a, with a flock camera and, you know, and use that against you. That's disturbing to me. It's also equally disturbing to me During 2020, when you weren't supposed to leave your house because, you know, you had a curfew and you're on lockdown, you're going to be a super spreader that they used cameras to follow you there as well. So those two things are equally disturbing to me. So I am I am struggling and it's not the police. that I have an issue with, it's the government that I have an issue with. Because all of us in this room are wonderful, beautiful people. And we only mean good things for our constituents. But what happens when we go? And one day we will all go, one way or another, And who will take our place? That is the concern. Not us here today, but who we might have in the future. And in as much as, you know, I've seen some surprising things. And since before 2020, I could say before 2020, I could say, oh, get out of here after 2020. I don't know. So I'm I'm going to. go back and forth on this for a while. Also, I just wanted to know if I could change. I'm okay. I was okay with that amendment. If I can change it, I'll change it if that's possible. My previous vote, I was okay with that. I got confused. So I'm rolling around to the last minute.

County Board Member Pretzel.

Thank you, Madam Executive. I own a cute little bakery on Route 30 in Mokena. And We give our employees 50% discount. And if I catch one of those employees given that discount to their friend, I would fire that employee. But what I'm not going to do is take the discount away for all the employees that are following the rules. Of course, we have these flock cameras, which our police officers are asking us for. It helps them fight crime. If you catch a police officer who wants to track the little barista from Starbucks that he thinks is cute, we should fire him or her. Right. We shouldn't take this nice tool away from all of the police officers that are using it the right way. I last April got a phone call in the four o'clock hour in the morning to from the Mokena Police Department, letting me know that I had a broken glass. I said, oh, my gosh, what's that mean? They said, well, come over here. We'll tell you more. Broken glass means that somebody went through my front door, yanked my cash register out, and did every other little retail business in my plaza. They actually got 13 other businesses that night. And the police, they're not really supposed to do high-speed chases anymore, so they rely on these cameras to find the thugs that are doing this. And if you drive down your main street in your little town or district and you see plywood on the doors of these buildings, it's because they're doing it in your town. And if we want to stop these people from doing this, we need to find them. How do you find them? You use this technology. Why didn't they find the guys that did this to my little business? Maybe because we didn't have enough cameras. We should have more cameras. Not less. I can't believe the undertone here for all these people objecting to this, unfortunately, is distrust for the police. And this is growing, and it's so sad. It's so sad that so many people don't trust the police anymore. What are you going to do, parents, if your child... Ends up unfortunately, God forbid missing and I have young driver. I have a young driver. She's 17 years old. And I hope to God, everything always goes. Okay. But if she turns up missing, I'm going to call the police and say, can you find this license plate? And I hope that there's those cameras everywhere that my daughter might have driven that day so that they can find her quickly. I just don't understand why we're even questioning this. It's a tool that the police are asking us to give them. I assume you all ran on safety being something you want to provide for your constituents. Elect me and I'll make the community safer. Maybe you didn't say that. I certainly did. And I know my constituents are counting on me to deliver on that. I'm a hard yes on this. I'll always be a hard yes on this. I question anybody that's not. Thank you.

Member Ortiz and Butler. Thank you, Madam Executive. I understand why law enforcement likes this technology. It can absolutely be a useful tool. My concern is the amount of surveillance infrastructure we're continuing to build without enough oversight and accountability around how it's being used. We've already seen cases of misuse across the country and even here in Joliet and we've seen concerns involving immigration enforcement and reproductive health care and Illinois already had laws restricting certain uses of this data and flock wasn't following them. So what's that old saying? Fool me once, shame on flock. Fool me twice, shame on me. We should know better not to do business with flock in good faith because they've shown us that they're bad actors. So when I hear we'll put safeguards in place, my question is what happens when those safeguards aren't followed? Because we already know that can happen. It has. So I support giving law enforcement the tools that they need to keep our community safe. But I also believe part of our job is protecting the people from government overreach. So until we have stronger oversight, regular audits, transparency around how these cameras are actually being used, and real accountability when the rules are broken, I'm not comfortable continuing to expand this infrastructure. So for me, that's what this vote comes down to.

Thank you. So every municipality in Will County has flock cameras, except for, I thought it was either Laporte or Lockport one. That's what I heard. We're worried about this tracking us. Honestly, I'm looking around, and I don't mean to demean anyone, but who here is so important that they think is going to be tracked from the time they walk out their door? Nobody cares. I mean, honestly, they can't track faces anyway. They track license plates. So that's already been said. They do complete audits. The police, the agency, whatever the officer is, are tied to whatever that search is. So there's accountability. You know, ICE is not allowed by law to look or use the flat cameras. It's been stated. So all I'm thinking is in a town, you have a county road. Could go right through the middle of town. So you can have flock cameras all over the town, but not on the road that's a county road that goes through the middle of the town. So if a crime's committed, you have cameras in the town, but there's a possibility that a criminal could use a county road to try to make their escape because you can't track them on that, but you have them everywhere else. All it is is a deficit for law enforcement. So I believe it was said too that the data is only kept for so long before it's deleted. So there's a time limit on that. And honestly, if I'm gonna worry about my privacy being invaded, I'm more worried about Facebook when I'm talking about something and then in 10 minutes that ad comes up on my phone. I said, you know, we live in a society where people just keep track of everything. But this is specifically a tool that helps fight crime. And with ring cameras at every door, You know, I don't know how many times I've heard about officers had solving crimes just with a ring camera. But when you have cameras on main thoroughways where, you know, a lot of traffic goes through, that's a great way to keep track of people and keep people safe and to solve crimes. So I'm a big yes.

Member Freeman, then Hickey.

Thank you. Madam speaker. County executive, I've got you confused. Sorry. So I just have to say that 1 of our county board members, I'm convinced the superpower is that she can see what's coming nationally and brings it to our attention. And that's what happened here. This was flock camera abuses were brought to our attention and then bam, it blows up on a national level and all kinds of stories start coming out and we start hearing about the abuses. It started with like two days, I think, after it was brought to our attention on our county level where the Joliet officer was caught that has been mentioned several times today and he still hasn't had Any criminal charges against him, but the. Our county board member that knew this was going to be a problem in the future. She started working with our municipal chiefs and they came up with. Policies that they could all get around and I applaud the efforts. That were taken. Mokina gave us a sample policy that we have used to base all the other ones. They've made changes. They said, you know what? You're right. Some oversight does need to happen. We could do better. Let's work together. And we came up with something. Now, there is one today that has not happened. changed theirs and so i will be a no on it however the others with the amendment because as it's been stated everything is changing so rapidly flock just recently came out and said hey you know what we can we can do better too so i think if everybody works together we will be able to create an ordinance with the iga i am okay with the ones that have Fix their policies to follow the 1 from that is our guideline and I applaud everybody for working together on this. Thank you.

Thank you member gala and then block.

Thank you. So the reason I first got involved with FLOC was way back when Mokena was having a lot of break-ins. There were people going around from outside of Mokena, coming in, going into the driveways, going into their cars, stealing things. And then they would leave Mokena and go out into a country road. Well, once you get on a country road, you can go absolutely anywhere and disappear. So I've worked closely with Chief Framoni, Scott Kerner, and he has demonstrated to me time and time again the importance of flak because most people who I know don't like flak because they think it's a surveillance, and it is a surveillance, but... He has shown me so many times the benefits of having flock on our county highways because they've helped find people who have broken in, missing children, missing elderly, many things like that. And I think it demonstrates that it's a good thing. And I think every one of us here has worked with somebody who has done something wrong or has done unethical things. But the vast majority of, I would say, every police officer tries to do the very best job that they can. They became a police officer to do a good job to protect the citizens. So I think this gives us that opportunity. I mean, I go door-to-door campaigning. I'm on everybody's ring camera. I'm not too fond of that, you know, because usually it's 90 degrees and I look like a sweat hog out there. But it is a fact, and I think that They are making strides and their police departments want to make sure that all the right regulations are in place so that they can continue to use this to help solve crimes and keep us safe. So I will be a yes. Thank you.

Thank you. I can't remember if I said who was up next. Yes, thank you. Member Bullock.

Thanks. All right. I want to make a few statements and I want a yes or no. See if we can do that. Okay. Fine. You can do it. I don't, I don't care who says yes or no. Just if you know the answer. Okay. We're going to, yeah. We'll let the state's attorney. All right. So what we're talking about voting on is not going to stop any of the cameras within their municipalities.

Yes.

All right. Now he's doing it. Not you guys.

All right, a lawyer never wants to give a 1 more.

Okay. That's that's good. Okay. So they're asking us to allow. More cameras to be put up on our property.

Yes, thank you.

Okay.

Okay. Yeah, I'm sorry. They want to be, they want to have the cameras in there. Yes, that's correct. They want to have the cameras that are existing.

They want to continue existing cameras.

Correct.

Okay. If we say no, there's nothing that stops them from asking a private property owner if they can put a flock camera on their property, correct?

No, not to my knowledge.

No, it's not stopping them.

That one I got to qualify, not to my knowledge.

Okay. All right. And then the police also, does IDOT work with the police as well with the cameras that they have up on, you know, iPass and, you know, there's other cameras that are out there that are not flock cameras that are doing license plate reading. They're IDOT, correct?

There are IDOT cameras, yes. Okay.

Okay. So there's a lot of opportunity for them to see cameras. Businesses have cameras. That's how they used to solve crimes, by using the businesses' cameras. They'd go from door to door trying to find people that had cameras and, can we see your footage? We're looking for this. So that's still in place. Ring cameras were mentioned as well. All right. Thank you. That's what I needed to know.

Member Berkowitz and Hickey. Thank you, County Executive. So this issue impacts each one of us as a parent or even a son or daughter. Public safety impacts all of us throughout our lives. I can't even tell you how many times we've had first responders come to our assistance within our family. Our grill caught on fire. These incredible heroes came out and put the fire out on our deck. The alarm went off. They came over at 2 in the morning and made sure we were safe. and they rushed in and made sure that we got out of there and we were safe. These cameras, to me, why are they important? Because I have had experiences as a mother where we have been in a moment of need and we have relied on law enforcement to come and assist in a very stressful time. My youngest son was an escape artist. This kid was always escaping out of the house. I don't know why. He would one day, a man rings my doorbell and I opened the door and there he is standing with my son. And he's like, ma'am, this boy was out on the corner. almost had a heart attack. Um, again, he ran off one day. We wound up putting deadbolts on every door in the house because he was just a free spirit. But I remember the police came out and they calmed me down and they went through a plan to look around the neighborhood to see if we could find my son. And fortunately, a neighbor walked up with him holding his hand and there he was again. And I was really, really relieved, but I felt like I had lost about 10 years on my life. Now, I never forget those days. I feel I'm truly blessed every day because there were so many times and incidents where it turned out to be a blessing and it turned out the outcome was good. But every day today, I think about the people who rely on these people to help them, firemen, first responders, law enforcement, neighbors, neighbors. And if you're a parent today, you're experiencing the same things we experienced as parents. But it makes me feel good that there is an opportunity to be proactive. I know when my son went missing, they couldn't say, let's take a look. We got a camera here and there. Let's find... we we have benefits here benefits here that can save lives and are making a big difference they are deterring crime they are they are making neighborhoods safer so when you're looking at the subject surveillance I guarantee you that every person in this room, if it was your loved one that was missing, probably one of the first thoughts in your mind would be, where are the cameras? Where are the cameras? Do you have a camera? And for that reason, I know the concern is about bad behavior, illegal activity, but we are humans at the end of the day. We have doctors that do things they're not supposed to do. We have teachers that do things they're not supposed to do. But in our society, we have a lot of good people out there that ensure that people are moving in the right decision and making good decisions and if they are not they are being held accountable and we have had the chiefs from our municipalities come before us and promise to us that integrity is a priority for them. And no one will go unpunished if they break the law. And for that reason, are we going to throw away all the good that can be done just because we fear that maybe one or two people may make a mistake? We have got to- Senator Berkley, I'm gonna need you to wrap up. Thank you. Thank you. So we've got to look at the greater good and public safety and public safety is for our communities. I know in my district, I have subdivisions. They are paying, their neighborhoods are paying for cameras. and it has reduced the crime, it has brought peace in the community, and it has increased public safety. So for that reason, I will be supporting the approval of the IGAs for these cameras. Thank you.

Thank you. Member Hickey, then Dean Schlottman.

Hi, thank you. Okay. First of all, just from the information that we learned today, unless your young child steals your car and takes off the license plate reader is not going to help find them. Um, this is a vote. Not whether police officers are trustworthy or whether the cameras work. They do. They clearly do. Um. I have had problems with the Fourth Amendment protections that don't seem to be built in. We do seem to have an issue where FLOC is essentially auditing itself. That's crazy. We don't let anybody audit themselves. We pay auditors. You know, you audit money. You can't have this information being audited by an $8 billion private corporation from another state. But I have listened to our chiefs of police and I have read not just social media, I've read a lot of places. And looking at the information that's out there. There is a place to use these. And my hope is that with with this amendment that we've added in that we can put some meaningful oversight into these that we can make sure that there are consequences for law enforcement agencies and vendors who abuse the system. And I think it should be criminal charges because if you cut down a flock camera, I think they're being pressed with criminal charges. but we need to make sure that we have the public's trust and in doing that we need to work together as a board to make sure that the ordinance that we put in place is a strong check on this very powerful tool that i would hope we would want law enforcement to have thank you thank you member dean schlattman so i don't think i'm going to be saying anything that i don't think has been said already

But there's no reasonable expectation of privacy in public. None. Would I be correct in saying that? I'm asking the state's attorney. No. Is there any expectation?

Avoid that one. No, there's no case that has said there's an expectation of privacy on when you're in public.

so we have cameras on highways we have cameras on private property i'm betting almost everybody here has a ring camera or something similar we have our cell phones people have meta glasses take a trip anywhere they scan your passport you come back in they're doing it through facial recognition as a veteran i am sure my dna is in some system somewhere completely tracked by the government okay i get the government overreach i get people not liking that there's the access to this information but it's out there anyway And you're saying, well, flock can do this and that with looking at a license plate. Those are in. You can the reason that bad apples have been caught is because of flock. Because people are using the technology along with the DMV along with other resources that they can get if they are tracking someone. And according to the trust act, as far as I know, and we always talk about upholding the state statutes in this floor. The police cannot give any information to ICE, and I know that they're not at this point. So we either have the technology to use it for those who are going to need it, and I absolutely support the ability to help law enforcement go forth and find criminals and bad actors with flock and if my car is you know taking a picture of well it was either on that or on 355. and i personally have gone through um a toll taking my kids to great america i didn't have my sticker with me and gosh the illinois tollway they sent me that bill an extra three bucks on top of it for the processing to pay the toll. So they were able to find my license plate and where I was located. So I am absolutely in support of this. And I hope that the rest of the county board members will be as well.

Member Logan.

So we're just voting on letting someone use our property. We're not voting on flock cameras, right?

Correct. But we're

I'm just waiting for his microphone to come up. All this for me to say yes.

Yeah, that's we're just, we're just letting somebody use our. Oh, thank you. We're just letting someone use our property, right? That's all this is. Okay. I'm for flocks. I wish they had flocks back in the 90s when I was a copper, we could have solved a lot of crimes, but I could go on and on and on forever. Um, but I am for this and. Let them use our property. So I'm for this. So, thank you.

Member Williams and Revis. Thank you.

I'm hearing a lot about, you know, public safety and all of this. And I, of course, am in favor of helping the police anywhere that can be in a former dispatcher for over 20 years. But one thing I'm not hearing is about the people, the public that was concerned about this in the first place. We do have our constituents that are that have come here today and they have spoken to us about this very issue. So, for us to disregard what they're saying is not I don't think that's right either. Also, we are not just voting for them to use our property. We're voting for them to use our property to put a flat camera on. So let's get that straight. So that is what the vote is for them to use our property for that purpose. Again, we are here to represent the public and the public has said that they have some concerns about these cameras. So I would not want us to disregard that aspect of it, thinking that we're doing something for the public that the public may not want us to be doing. Thank you.

Okay, to wrap it up, Member Revis.

Thank you, Madam Executive. I think, well, let me just start. While Julie's son was spending time running away from her as a kid, I was spending time running to my dad. I would hide in his squad car before he went to work. He was a police officer, and I would try and sneak to go to work with him so I could experience all the things that he was working on at work. And he'd share with me stories about how he was investigating crimes and how he would go about solving those crimes. He was really a brilliant man. He actually currently is a brilliant man. He currently works with the Will County State's Attorney's Office as an investigator. And I'm incredibly proud of him. But as a kid, I was exposed to the many ways that he would solve crimes and his brain and his thinking process and. All that stuff. And one moment sticks out in particular. And he was trying to get a bank to share a camera from an ATM camera footage from an ATM that captured a armed robbery or a grand theft auto across the street. I don't remember exactly what it was. Was and he had a bag that the bank to give the footage over. So I'm saying this because while there is no expectation of privacy while you're in public. Is it not reasonable to think that there's other ways to gather evidence to solve crimes outside of these flock cameras? Is there other ways to find our missing child that ran away other than flock cameras? Are there other ways to stop violent crime from happening other than flock cameras? Oftentimes we see elected officials in government try to replace things that should be a responsibility of the individual. If you lose your child and you're concerned about losing your child, it's your job to make sure you have a tracker in their car, or you're tracking them on their phone, or maybe even some people put air tags in their children's shoes. There's a lot of alternative ways to go about addressing some of the concerns that Flock has been a tool to solve those problems with. In these times when there's a lot of debate over different variables of a public policy issue, I like to look back at our founding fathers, some of the smartest people that came up with the greatest nation in the history of the world. In a letter from the Pennsylvania Assembly to the colonial governor during the French and Indian War, Benjamin Franklin was outlining some of his thoughts on government, and he had a line that sticks through and rings true with this debate here in front of us. Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. I think that quote right there summarizes my position on this better than anything I could really come up with myself. But I just feel like the public is at a point where they don't want their tax dollars being used to set up a surveillance infrastructure no matter what benefit comes from that infrastructure. We hear a lot of times individuals come up to us for a special use permit or whatever it is, they make promises, they use shoulds, coulds, and woulds, and we're left as a board being like, wait a second, are you making that promise now or are you just saying it should not trend that way? And we don't really have any way to hold them to their word. And I think that this infrastructure is rapidly accelerating to the point where the toothpaste is out of the tube and the public's essential liberties are going to be completely eroded. And I just think. At this time, I'm taking a stand. I remain pro-law enforcement. I'm so pro-law enforcement. I think this tool is going to do more harm than good over the long term. And I think we need to set the standard today and vote no on all these agreements. Thank you.

All right, thank you. All right, that wraps up everyone. So we are number two.

We've had a motion and a second. So we are voting on resolution 26-26 as amended.

Madam Clerk, please call the vote.

Richmond. Williams. Dean Schlattman. Yeah. Ogalla. Yeah. Pretzel. Yes. Butler. Yes. Newquist. Balich. No. Oxley. No. Brooks, Winfrey, Bullock, Logan, Freeman, Revis, Mitchell, Ortiz, Berkowitz, Hickey, Costa, Trainier, Van Dyne.

14 in the affirmative the motion carries all right so i think so each one of these is separated so we um we can make a i'm going to ask this can we make a previous role but for two of them or can we do this so they're all as amended what is what do we have to do to make this legit yeah

Yeah, you need to introduce the amendment. But what I would say is now that it's clear on the record and you're amending the exact same way, I would just say we're referencing this amendment. It's going to be clear in our minutes.

So we don't have to vote twice. No, we do have to vote. So we're voting twice on each one of these. Okay. All right. So.

You could do previous. Yeah. Well, but if they want to continue down this road, if they just if.

No, too late for consent.

He just asked whether they could just roll them through even though they were different. Yeah. Yeah, if they want to do it that way. Yeah.

Just want to make sure we're not doing this and something's wrong. So you're going to do two motions every time. Two motions. Okay, perfect. Go ahead. You're up, ma'am.

All right number 3, a resolution 26 dash 261 authorizing an intergovernmental agreement between the village of Crete and the county of will for placement of license plate reader cameras located on county highways in the county of will. And I so move motion by by Freeman Freeman and now I'd like to make a motion to amend that. with the amendment that had been previously approved. That's on everyone's desk. I don't think I need to read it again, and I will make that motion motion by trainer, seconded by Newquist.

Previous roll call by Logan. Okay, she's adding she would like to add amendments.

So we're gonna hear the amendment.

Okay, so why don't we take a clean roll call. And then please, everybody, stick to your vote for the other one. Yeah.

So now... At least most of them.

Yeah. So we are going to now just vote on as amended. So we have a motion and a second as amended. We have discussion.

I think I want... No, we have to do the previous... We have to do a roll call on the amendment because we have two people that are changing their vote.

So roll call on the amendment again. We're doing a roll call on the amendment again. Right now, yes. Right now, it's on the amendment again.

But then you have to do as amended.

Hold on, we'll get questions.

I'm making sure that, can you clarify? We have to approve the amendment again.

There's got to be an easier way here.

Correct. The reason that I'm saying you have to do the amendment process is because they're unique IGAs. And I've heard during the caucuses that certain people feel certain ways about certain towns and certain locations. So rather than just assume that we want the same thing for everything, I think this is the only way you get a valid binding way. It will take some time, but we can roll through it quickly.

Can we do one motion on every amendment for these items? And then we can just do both. Can we just make one big motion to amend that each of these items?

Yeah, no, I. If that is the will of the board, and we understand that you want to amend all of these.

So, we're going to take 1 blanket vote to amend each 1 of these items. So we're going to take a motion to amend items 3, 4. so we're doing all that. We don't.

So I'm going to change my amendment to to reference dry original 1. I'm going to withdraw it. I'm going to re, introduce the proposed 2nd amendment. I don't know why it's a 2nd, but proposed amendment on items number 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. Okay. This amendment on all items. 3 through 8, and I so move like, I see the consent of the board.

Nobody's objecting to it. If somebody has a change on this, go ahead and make yourself known. But otherwise.

Okay, so no, he said he's going to change. So no, no, no. So we have a motion by by member to near to make an amendment for each of the subsequent. Intergovernmental agreements, is there a 2nd to that? Freeman, no, so I'll do a roll call. We'll do a roll call for this. So this is yeah. Okay, are you comfortable? Yeah. Okay. So again, this is just, again, we're doing the amendment on all the intergovernmental agreements. Madam Clerk, please call the roll. This is just on the amendments again, because a couple of people want to change their vote.

Richmond. Yes. Williams. No. Dean Schlattman. No. Ocala.

Yes.

Pretzel. Butler.

No.

Newquist. Balich. Axley Brooks Winfrey Bullock Logan Freeman Revis Mitchell Ortiz Berkowitz Hickey Costa Trainier yes Van Dyke okay now hold on 12 in the affirmative

Motion 13.

Oh, I'm sorry, 13 in the affirmative. The motion carries.

Okay. Now we're going to vote on item number three as amended. And I already moved and we already have a second.

So are we doing a roll call? We had a motion by Trenere on this number three, seconded by Newquist. And now we're doing a roll call.

All right. You don't want to do preview. We want a roll call. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Richmond?

Yes.

Williams? No. Dean Schlottman? Yes. Ocala? Yes. Pretzel? Yes. Butler? Yes. Newquist?

Yes.

Balich? No. Axley? No. Brooks? Yes. Winfrey? Bullock? Logan?

No.

Freeman?

Yes.

Revis? No. Mitchell? Ortiz? Berkowitz? Yes. Hickey? Costa? Trainier? Yes. Van Dyne?

Yes.

14 in the firm of the motion carries item number 4 resolution authorizing an integral agreement between the village of Manhattan and the county of will for placement of license plate reading cameras located on county highways in the county of will. As amended, and I so move motion by.

Seconded by Butler previous role peers roll call by Van Dyne, seconded by Dean Schlappman all in favor.

Any opposed motion carries number 5 resolution 26 dash 263 authorizing an intergovernmental agreement between the village of Beecher and the county of will for the placement of license plate reader cameras located on the county highways in the county of will as amended. And I so move motion by trend near set of seconded by Butler.

Roll call on this one. Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Okay, I'm sorry. Discussion?

So, from what I understand, and somebody can let me know, is Beecher the municipality that we haven't heard from? Correct. So, I would like to make a motion to just postpone this to give them another chance to respond.

There's been a motion to postpone. Is there a second? Seconded by Freeman. Okay. We're having a motion to postpone till next month meeting.

Yes.

Okay. The motion in a second, um, madam clerk, this is on postponing beaches to next County board meeting. Madam clerk, please call the roll.

Richmond Williams. No. Dean Schlattman. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Pretzel Butler. New quest. Yes. Balance actually Brooks. Oh, and free. We'll look. Logan Freeman. Mitchell Ortiz. Thank you.

Yes.

Close to train here now. Yes.

1717 in the negative the motion fails. All right, so we're now back on the original. Yep. Madam. So we are on Beecher number. 5, I read beat your Madam clerk. Please call the role.

Richmond Williams. Okay. Hello. Yes. Yes. Butler. Yes. New quest.

No.

Actually Brooks.

Yeah.

Winfrey? Bullock? Logan? Freeman? Reves? Mitchell? Ortiz? Berkowitz? Hickey? Costa?

Trainier? Van Dyke? Are you sure you don't want to change her?

14 to the negative, the motion fails.

All right, item number six, resolution 26-264, authorizing an intergovernmental agreement between the Village of Frankfort and the County of Will for placement of license plate reading cameras located on county highways in the County of Will as amended.

Motion by Trenary. Seconded by Butler. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Richmond. Yes. Williams. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Yes. Yes.

14 in the firm of the motion carries item number 7 resolution 26 dash 265 authorizing an intergovernmental agreement between the city of Naperville and the county of will for placement of license plate reader cameras located on county highways in the county of will as amended.

And I still move. Sorry. Motion by Trenare, seconded by Hickey. Previous roll call by Mitchell, seconded by Brooks. All in favor? Any opposed? Motion carries.

And the last one, resolution number eight, resolution 26-266, authorizing an intergovernmental agreement between the City of Wilmington and the County of Will. for placement of license plate reading cameras located on county highways in the county of Will as amended, and I so move.

Motion by Trenary. Seconded by Van Dyne. Previous roll call by Freeman.

Seconded by Hickey. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries.

I just want to let you know that we are going to work on this ordinance. If you have something in mind, please get it to our committee. We will then task the state's attorney with writing the ordinance and our next public works and Transportation Committee meeting is scheduled for September 1st. At 9 AM.

Thank you. Moving on to public health and safety chair Butler.

Thank you Madam chair. We have nothing to move forward. Our next scheduled meeting is for September 3rd.

Thank you. I'm going to call Speaker Van Dyne up here. We're going to continue, though. Sorry. Madam Chair Winfrey, Legislative Committee.

Thank you.

Madam speak, madam executive, uh, the legislative committee brings forth 1 resolution. It is 2652 62 or is it 5767 resolution amending because it could wear my glasses 62. okay. Resolution amending the public bidding process and I so move.

Move by went free seconded by discussion. Clean roll. Is there a previous previous? Well, we do need a clean roll. Please call the roll.

Richmond Williams. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Butler. New quest. Axley Brooks. Yeah. Winfrey. Yes. Bullock. Yes. Logan Freeman. Revis, Ortiz, Berkowitz, Hickey, Costa, Trainier, Van Dyke.

Yes.

And Ms. Mitchell.

21 in the affirmative. The motion does carry.

Thank you. Legislative Committee will meet again on September 1st. Thank you.

Thank you. Moving on to capital improvements and IT committee, Chair Freeman.

Thank you. I have nothing to bring forward. Our next capital improvement and IT committee meeting is scheduled for September 1st.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Landfill Committee, Chair Oxley. Thank you for hearing me, Mr. Speaker. The other day you tried to stifle me, and we got this straightened out. Thank you. I'm happy to report that we have increased productivity at the landfill, at the gas plant. We made some money in June and July, and we're moving forward to saving money and making that more profitable. Our next committee meeting is September 8th. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, moving on to Executive Committee, Speaker Van Dyne.

We do have a consent agenda, so any board member wishing to remove any item from the agenda? Okay. I second. Is there a previous?

Correct.

Yes, I'm sorry. So we are going to remove We are going to remove letter a.

All right, so we're actually sorry.

No, that's okay.

I don't want to.

It's all right. Okay. Right here.

We'll be through to you, yep.

All right, man of many chairs. I would like to make a motion for resolution 26-268, resolution regarding the role of the county in the annual tax sale. I would like to make a motion to remove that item from today's agenda and postpone it till September.

Motion by Van Dyne, seconded by Butler. Discussion? Member Balich.

Yeah, I've been going to, I think this will be the 4th time we talked about this. There's different ways that we could do this process and I've been arguing or discussing with the state's attorney's office and the treasurer. And they don't seem to get it that. there's another way that benefits the people that are losing their houses more than an auction, and that's using market value. And so now at Caucus, they brought up Pong versus Isabella. That's a case that went after Tyler. That was the case that decided everything. and that case i read it over briefly this morning because i didn't have a chance just the day before and i don't find anything in there that says you can't do it with appraisal you know with an appraisal process in other words a market value i can't find anything in there so i'm i'm suggesting that if we're going to be voting on this thing we're not the the mode is to respond yeah it should go to a committee yeah so the vote is what i'm i just kept

We're motion to postpone to come back here to go to commit. I'm sorry. Can you clarify?

So, well, I'm saying I would like, I'm making a motion that it goes through committee 1st, so that we can actually get to the bottom of this because it's a big deal. Because if you go to an auction, the people get less money and if you go to the market value, they get more money.

So you're you're making a motion to remove it and put it into committee.

Correct. Is it. And then it can go after committee can go to the full board. Yeah. So there's a motion. Is there a second?

Seconded by Ortiz.

Comment.

Yep. Member Van Dyke. I hate you.

Yeah, thank you. Uh, thank you madam executive. Um, as it's been stated, the, this, uh. This item has been under scrutiny for the last few months. Uh, my motion was to postpone until September to the full county board. I don't think a committee is necessary at this time. So I will, you know.

So we have a motion to. amend to go back to committee.

Yes, committee and then to the full board. We can still do it in September, but we need to iron this out because I'm being told one thing and then I look up the answers. I read, I'm not an idiot. I'm able to read the statute too. Yes. And my interpretation of the statute is that we can use the market value.

All right. So let's, hold on. We're going to, okay, I understand your argument, but we're going to, we're taking a vote now and we're going to make sure that we have the right vote, what you are articulating here. So-

So, so there are 2 separate issues here, and I think with the speakers trying to do is remove this because as we talked about, there's some issues that we believe will be cleared up in veto session that won't occur till October. So, I just, I think it'd be better to remove them. Yeah, but I think the veto session is in October, November, it will not be done. The fixes that need to be done will not be done next month.

So, yeah, so he made a motion to remove it till September though, if veto section isn't session isn't October, that's still going to be moves.

Correct. That's what I'm just trying to clarify is that the other issues with calling in and Tyler. Those are things we can work out, but with regards to the specific statutory things that we've been discussing.

Motion to postpone any argument should be whether we postpone or not not anything else. Well, they're just clarifying. They're helping clarify. They're helping to clarify.

Yeah, there was another motion that was made too.

So, well, I was amending the motion to say that I, I have no problem postponing it, but I wanted to go back to a committee. So I'm amending the motion to include. Postponing it, but sending it back to the committee and that way we can discuss this thing. Otherwise, how are we going to get all the answers we want. Put out the people in this room don't know about pong and Isabella. I do, but they don't. So, I mean, come on, how are they supposed to make a logical decision without knowing all the information? So that's all I'm saying, and we're just going to go to the county board and I tried to explain it at the county board and we go for 3 hours at the county board arguing about it because I'll argue till they tell me to shut up. So the bottom line is going to a committee is the way to answer this. We can argue without a committee and then whatever happens to committee, it moves forward to the board. All right. That's pretty simple.

So we have an amendment to go back to committee to remove and take. Did I say that? Okay. Is there discussion that member new quest? Thank you.

I, I. Think what you're saying Kevin is that and what I think Tim said at focus is that if this you guys are anticipating, there might be some substantial changes to this bill as a result of the veto session. So, does it not make sense to postpone this till after the veto session and then take it up again?

From the state's attorney's perspective, the issue we were attempting to address is exactly that. Member Belich has asked to do some other things with regards to what do you think the way we should value these things. If you want to keep bringing it back into committees until the veto session is done, that's fine. We won't be ready for the final thing until after the veto session is finished. So this may just be an ongoing discussion Where we still keep reminding it back until the veto sessions done madam executive.

I wanted to add I wanted to go no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no We can, I can add it at another date.

Okay. So, okay. So we have badges first though. So we have to finish that one first, correct? All right. So we, we, we haven't, I, you're going to come back to them speaker and I, but right now we have a motion already on the floor by Mr. Ballage to take this item back to committee, back to executive committee. Is there any discussion on that member Revis and then Ortiz?

I am going to support member balances motion to remand this back to committee executive committee.

Thank you member Ortiz.

I also am going to support this because I know that I have sent over a number of amendments to every board member here and I've spoken with Kevin Myers state attorney's office about those amendments who I had been told that we were going to have a meeting. I'm not sure when that meeting it is is going to be, but I would much rather have it in the public where it could be on record so that everybody can hear exactly what we're discussing. That would be my preference. So that's exactly why I am going to support this going back to committee. All right.

Very good. Any other? Okay. So again, we are voting on bringing this. Do you have a, is your light on your plate? We are voting to bring this back to executive committee. Madam clerk, please call the roll.

Richmond Williams. Yeah. Dean Schlattman. Okay. Ella pretzel Butler. New quest Alex. Yeah, actually Brooks. Yeah, Winfrey. Logan. Yes, Freeman. Revis Mitchell. Berkowitz. Costa. No.

18 affirmative the motion carries.

All right, Madam executive, I'd like to make a motion to remove. This item from the consent agenda and. Put it back on executive committee when we.

Did that.

Okay.

You can just go back now onto the consent agenda.

Okay. Fair enough. All right, consent agenda B through E, resolution.

Did you ask already if anyone? I did, yeah. Thank you.

A was removed, yes. Resolution 26-269, resolution authorizing the creation of equity fund fee for the county treasurer. Resolution 26-270, authorizing the county executive to execute an IGA with the village of Monee to provide access to the countywide radio system. Resolution 26-271, authorizing the county executive to execute an IGA with the village of Hazelcrest to provide access to the county wide radio system. Resolution 26-271 to authorize an IGA with South Holland. And that would be all. So I make a motion to approve all them on the- Motion by Van Dyne.

Seconded by Dean Schlattman. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Before you go on, sir, I do want to make a note just so it's publicly stated that resolution 26268 as amended with going back to committee was a 17 in the affirmative. The number was incorrect.

Thank you. Number two on our agenda, Ordinance 26-273, Amending Civil Fees to be Charged by the Clerk of the Circuit Court Consistent with the Amendments to 705-ILCS, Clerks of the Courts Act through Public Act 104-0468. And I will make that motion.

Motion by Van Dyne. Seconded by Ogalla. I don't remember the last vote. Okay, no, we have to. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Richmond Williams. Yeah. Okay. Yes. Yes. Butler new quest. Yeah, actually Brooks. Yeah. Logan Freeman. Mitchell Ortiz. Hickey Costa. Yes. Yes.

22 in the affirmative. The motion carries.

Thank you. Our next executive committee meeting is scheduled for September 10th, 2026. And at this point, I would like to make a motion to go in an executive session regarding labor negotiations and the appointments of officials.

Motion by Van Dyne, seconded by Ogalla. All in favor? Any opposed? Motion carries. We will be going to executive...

I'm not on here. Thank you, everyone. All right.

I'm going to ask Mr. Myers, when should we first vote on the recommendation of the attorney regarding negotiation? Can we do that now? Okay. Spear, Van Dyne.

Madam Executive, I'd like to make a motion to approve the recommendation by our labor attorney.

Motion by Van Dyne, seconded by Mitchell. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Richmond?

Yes.

Williams? Yes. Dean Slotman Gala pretzel butler. New quest village actually. Brooks Winfrey. Logan. Yes, Raymond. Mitchell. Berkowitz. Costa. Yes, yes.

18 in the affirmative the motion carries.

Thank you. I'd like to make a motion for a resolution 26 dash 243 approving county executive appointments to the board of review of will county.

Well, motion by Van Dyne seconded by actually. Hold on discussion discussion. Okay. Madam our member. Okay.

I forgot we're not now we're clicking buttons. I'd like to make a motion to break them all up into 3 different votes. I would like to see the resolution should be broke for each when we have multiple, we should have 1 resolution per person. So we don't have to pull them out and I don't know what happens now.

So, we just make that we have a motion to vote on them individually. That is seconded by member balance. Any discussion on dividing them up? Madam Clerk, please call the roll. This is to make your vote is to vote on them each independently.

Richmond? Yes. Williams? Yes. Ocala? Yes. Crenshaw? Yes. Butler? Yes. Newquest? Yes. Balich?

Yes.

Oxley?

Yes.

Brooks?

Yes.

Winfrey? Bullock? Yes. Logan?

Yes.

Freeman? Yes. Mitchell? Ortiz, Berkowitz, Hickey, Costa, Treynor, Van Dyne.

Yes.

Down to 20 in the affirmative. The motion carries. Speaker Van Dyne.

Madam Executive, I'd like to make a motion to appoint Member Crickman to the Will County Board of Review.

Motion by Van Dyne. Seconded by Oxley. We have a discussion. Member Treynor.

I have questions, and per our executive session, I was told to ask during the open session, I have seen the documents where all three Board of Review members signed to apply what I consider a residential policy based on my reading of the statute to vacant land, in particular land in Lockport Township. It is their job to hear... Objections to assessments and make decisions about those. But my understanding is once they've made that decision. Giving them a pass up until the next quadrant, you know, like a 4 year. Exemption or 4 year reduction. Is a residential owner occupied policy. The other objection I have to them doing this. Is they've devalued the land when you get your assessment, you have an evaluation for your land. That your property sits on and then an evaluation for the real estate, the improved improvements on the land, and they do that for a very good reason. And that is land doesn't lose value. It gains value. And in this particular township, there's been a huge improvement in every single lot, both vacant and occupied.

I know.

An improvement done by Will County. We brought water and sewer to that entire community. They now get Joliet water and we paid for all their sewer improvements when I 1st got on this board. And I believe we have 2 county board members here who can attest to this because they were here at the time there was raw sewage running down the streets. That doesn't happen anymore. So there have been improvements to this vacant land yet our board of review by their signatures reduced the value of vacant land in that neighborhood owned by 1 owner. And then did not in any time since then equalize the property in that area for other vacant land owners. And that is their job. It is to ensure assessments are equitable within counties by applying blanket increases or decreases. That's in the code of the statute. So I'd just like to know how I can approve appointing somebody to a position who, in my opinion, misapplied the law. I know there was more of a speech there than a question. So I'll go back to the question. Is it proper to apply a residential policy to vacant land?

The statute with residential homestead exemptions.

I'm not talking about homestead exemption. They gave them a four-year, I'll call it a freeze. The value of the property was to stay the same in the letter, which every board member here was given a copy of the letter, until the next quadrennial. And that's normally only done on residential properties.

I would defer to the supervisor of assessments as to the standard procedure.

They've only had one of these letters in the entire history of our lives. The supervisor of assessments is here.

Would you like him to respond to that?

He can respond.

Is the he me?

No, the supervisor of assessments. Sorry. You're off the hook for a minute.

Uh, tell I will kind of supervisor assessments.

You had a couple of questions there. Do you just want the 2nd 1 or you want the other?

Yeah, I think everybody would benefit from hearing about your opinions on all of them. But, like I said, I was looking at the state statute and that's where I got this.

Well, the 1st, when you said land doesn't decrease. It can't. Land doesn't depreciate, it does decrease. That's possible. There's a difference. But as far as giving a residential discount or what, how'd you word that?

residential policy freezing their value for four years till then.

It's not frozen.

It's subject to any kind of factors, but we don't ever apply factors half the time.

So I have looked at that every single year. I've applied a factor and my predecessors going back 30 years.

I spoke to our County treasurer today and he's in agreement with me that there's been no factor applied in new Homer township on industrial and commercial properties.

You just said any factor. I've applied a factor to every single township every year that I've been in office, and so is my credit.

But not to all property, mostly to residential property, not to industrial and commercial.

That part is true, yes.

Yes, and that means that we bear the disproportionate burden on property taxes as residential owners compared to industrial and commercial, which are for-profit entities. If they don't have a factor applied to them, is that I mean, do you apply factors to all the residential and the commercial and the industrial or just residential?

It's on residential unless requested by the township assessor to put it on the other property classes.

And why is that?

Oh, no, no, no, no, no.

We're we're.

Well, press your button. I didn't get the answer really to the statute. My understanding in the statute from my reading is that it's a residential policy to allow for that four-year assessment number to stay the same, minus any factor that might get applied to it.